The URL can be used to link to this page

05-596Council File # p5_5q� GreenSheet# �a�l�� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Refetred To WHEREAS, The application was taken up again by the Zoning Committee on Apri128, 2005, and the Committee, following a discussion of the matter, submitted its recommendation to the Commission; and 2�0 2 WHEREAS, Vinh L.e (a!k/a Vu H. L.e) pursuant to the provisions of the zoning code 3 made application to the Saint Paul Planning Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission"), in File 4 No. OS-068-378, for approval of a site plan to construct a new single-fanuly home for property 5 located at 816 Winthrop Street South and legally described as BURLINGTON HEIGH'TS, 6 DIVISION N01, RAMSEY COITNTY, MINNESOTA ALL THAT PT OF LOTS 1 THRU 3 7 BLK 8 AND OF VAC WILDVIEW AVE THAT LIES NLY AND NEI.Y OF THE FOL DESC 8 LINE; BEG AT A PT ON THE ELY L OF LOT 1 THAT IS 104.08 FT NLY OF THE SELY 9 COR OF SD LOT 1 THEN S; and 10 11 WHEREAS, The Commission's Zoning Committee, having provided notice to 12 surrounding property owners, duly conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2005 where all 13 persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard and, at the close of the hearing, moved 14 to lay the matter over for a two-week period to Apri128, 2005 for the purpose of having planning 15 staff answer certain questions; and 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 WHEREAS, The Commission, by its Resolution No. OS-53 adopted May 6, 2005, decided to deny the application based on the following findings and conclusions: The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the city. The site plan is not consistent with this finding. The site plan that wa: submitted for consideration was not signed by a professional or dated. Committee: Date 2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul. The site plan is not consistent with the following provisions of the River Corridor Overlay Zoning District regulating development on steep slopes: -"No residential development shall be pernutted on slopes greater than 18 percent" in the River Corridor Overlay Zoning District (Section 68.402.b3). The plan shows a new driveway and other grading on slopes greaterthan 18 percent. 1 2 -"No rehabilitation slopes steeper than 18 percent" shall be permitted. 3 (Section 68.402.c.7). The site plan shows retaining walls and 4 rehabilitation slopes steeper than 18 percent. 5 6 3. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable 7 provision for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sign 8 buffers, preservatzon of views, light and air, and those aspects of design 9 which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 a The site plan is not consistent with this finding. Construction of a new house and grading as shown on the site plan would change the existing surface water drainage pattems on the site in a way that would create drainage problems for adjacent houses to the south of the site. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure abutting property ancUor its occupants will not be unreasonably affected. The site plan is not consistent with this finding. The development shown in the site plan would unreasonably affect abutting property due to drainage probiems and the loss of existing vegetation resulting from construction ofthe proposed house andthe grading and paving associated with it. C�- 5°tt� WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.702(a) Vu H. L,e (a/k/a Vinh L,e), on May 16, 2005, duly filed in Commission File No.05-104465, an appeal from the deternunation made by the Commission and requested a hearing before the City Counci] for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to I.eg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on June 15, 2005, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, The Councii, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the recard, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission, does hereby RESOLVE, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter as the Council, based upon the record and the testimony, could find no error in any fact, finding, or procedure in the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Vu H. Le (a/k/a Vinh L,e), is hereby denied;and, BE IT F'LJRTHER RESOLVED, That the City Council adopts as its own in support of its decision herein, the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission set forth in Commission Resolution No. OS-53 which is incorporated herein by reference; and Page 2 of � 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution 3 to Vu H. L.e (a/k/a Vinh Le), the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. OFJ"5�1�P Adopted by Council: Adoption Certified by Council Approved � Green Sheet Green Sheet Gree,n Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � . . - Departrnent/of8ce/council: . Date initiatedr �� ` Y cA -��TyA�m� Z��N-05 Green Sheet NO: 3027068 Cofrtact Person 8 Phone: Deoartment Sent To Person Initial/Date Peter Wamer � 0 i Attoroev __(�Z71j, 266-87�0 Assign 1 i Attom .. Must Be on Council l�qenda by (Date): Number 2 a oYs ce For . ROUting 3 ouncil ,,, . Order 4 i lerk '� 5 , Total # of Signature Payes _(Clip All Locations for Signature) - Action Requested: � Resolution memorializing Council's Motion of Intent (6-15-OS) to uphold a decision of the Planning Commission denying site plan approval for a properry located at 816 Winthrop S4eet. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Foilowing Questions: Planning Commission t. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No � Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No � 3. Dces this person7£rm possess a skrll not nortnally possessed by any , current city employee? Yes No ' . Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and aYtach to green sheet +:,r Initiating Probtem, Issues, Opportunity (VAiho, What, When, Where, Why): :i>� . . . . . . _ , 'r,'�:.,: � , ' . . , � �r,i '" � � Adva�Waes IfApqroved: . �� R�� ; - , . - � ��$� i . Disadvantages If Approved: " �� y l'i' . � �` "Disadvantages If Not Approved; " � �.., Total Amountof - CosURevenue Hudgeted: � � Transaction: . Funtling Source: ' Activity Number: Financial Information: . � (F�cp4ain) . OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECiTONS AND �� ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 7aneen E. Ros¢r, Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Ke11y, Mayor May 31, 2005 Ms. Mary Erickson City CouncIl Research Office Room 310 City hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Erickson: IAWRYPROFESSZONALBilILDING Tetephone: 65I-266-9D90 350 St. Peter Street, Sui7e 300 Paccimi7e: 65I-266-9724 SaintPaul,Mirzrtesoia55102-ISIO We6: www.cistpauLm�cur/liep I would like to confum that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, June 15, 2005, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a site pian for a new single-family house. Appellant: File Number: Purpose: Address: Vinh Le OS-104465 Appeal of a P12uning Commission decision to deny the site plan for a new single-family house in tUe River Conidoi Overlay Dist�ict 816 Winthrop Street South , Legal Description BURLINGTON HEIGHTS, DIVISION NO. 1, RAMSEY COUNTY, of Property: MINNESOTA ALL THAT PT OF LOTS i THRU 3 BLK 8 AND OF VAC WII,DVIEW AVE THAT LIES NLY AND NELY OF THE FOL DESC LINE; BEG AT A PT ON THE ELY L OF LOT 1 THAT IS 104.08 FT NLY OF THE SELY COR OF SD LOT 1 THEN S Previous Acfion: Planniug Commission denial; Unanimous May 6, 2005 Zoning Committee denial; 7-0 April 28, 2005 I have confirmed this date with Councilmember Lantry . My understanding is that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I,egal I,edger. Please call me at 266-9086 if you have any quesrions. Sincerely, ��'�t �� Tom Beach Zoning Specialist AA-AAA-EEO Employer NOTICE OF PUBLIC flEARII�iG � I 1he Saint Paul GYty Coimcil wll( concluct a i pubHc hearing on Wednesday, Jvne 75, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. in the, City Covncll Chambers, 1Yvrd Floor City Hail. 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN, to con- sider the appeal of Puih Le to a decision of the Plannin�+ Commission to deny the site plan for a singie-family hause in Jhe'River Corridor Overlay Dishic{ at S16 WinUunp Street South. � MARY ERICKSON . . � Aasistant City Coiutcil Secretazy Dated: June 1, 200b � iJuae 61 --- S1:' PAUL fEGAL'-�°'!`-^= `- 22096352 ' - ... OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECIIONS AND ENVIl20NMENTAL PROTECITON Janeers Rosas, Dirutor � SAi�i PAUL � IIAAA � • CITY OF SAINT PAUL Rundy G Kel[y, Mayor 7une 8, 2005 Ms. Mary Erickson Ciry Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILDING Te]ephane: 651d66-9090 8Easi4"'Slreet Suire100 Facsimile: 651-2669I24 Saint P¢ul, Minneso:a SSI01 Web: www.ci.npaul.mrs.vs/[iep RE: Zoning File OS-104465 - Appeal of a decision by the Planning Comroi�cion to deny a site plan City Council Hearing: June 15, 2005, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to deny a site plan for the construcrion of a new single-family house located in the River Corridor Overlay District at 816 Winthrop. APPELLANT: Vinh Le (the properry owner) PLANNJNG COMNIISSION DECISION: Deny (Unanimous) May 6, 2005 ZONING CONINIITTEE RECOMD�NDATION: Deny (7-0) April 28, 2005 STAFF RECONIl�IENDATION: Approve with conditions SUPPORT: Nobody spoke in support OPPOSITION: Four people spoke in opposition and a petition was submitted. Deaz Ms. Erickson: A site plan for a singie-family house was submitted Mr. Vinh Le submitted a site plan for a new single-family house at 816 Winthrop. (Tlus lot was created by a lot split that was approved by sYaff in September 2004 and Mr. L,e purchased the lot shortly afterwazd.) The lot is located in the River Corridor Overlay Zoning Disuicts where there aze standards prolubiting development on slopes steeper than 18%. Quesuons were raised by neighbors about whether the site plan met the River Corridor standards for development on slopes and so a public heazing on the site plan was heid on April 14. The site plan was denied by the Planviug Commission Staff presented a staff report that said the site plan met the River Corridor standards for developing on steep siopes and recommended approval of the site plan with conditions about preserving trees, conuolling sed'unent and m;ni.T»zing grading during construction. The Zoning Committee recommended deniai of the site plan on a 7-0 vote. The Pianning Commission denied the site piaa on a unanimous vote based on findings that: - The site plan calls for development on slopes steeper than 18 % and would create new slopes steeper than 18% in violation of the standards of the River Comdor Overlay Zoning District. - The development would "change the eusting surface water drainage pattems on rhe site in a way that would create drainage problems for adjacent houses to the south of the site" and "the loss of existing vegetation [due to] and the grading and paving" would unreasonably affect the adjacent houses. - The pians were not signed by a registered professional or dated. v5-5�� An appeal w the City Conncil was filed Mr. Le filed an appeal on May 16, 2005_ The appeats states that: � - The house dces not impact any slopes steeper than 18�. The driveway crosses an smaiI azea of slopes steeper than 18% but the change in grade is only 6' over a distance of 28'. - The changes in drainage will reduce the amount of run-off going to the adjacent properties. - The plans were not required to be signed since Stage law only rquires signed drawings for Consiructino Drawings. The appeal is scheduled to be heazd on June 15, 205 Please contact me at 266-9086 or tom.beachCa?ci.stoaul.mn.us if there aze any questions. Sincerely, I (� Tom Beach LIEP Inspector 3 Attachments cc: Ciry Councilmembers H:\COMMOMSi¢ PIan�Big projats\Wiar6�op 816 SF Home�c covv ]en¢ for pacl¢[.wpd � • d�541 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Deparhnent ofPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section RECEIVED IN I.IEP 1400 City Ha11 Annvx 25 West Fourth Sbeet jy'/.�j� g� 2QQ5 Saint Pau� MN SSIO2-I634 (65l) 266-6589 APPUCANT PROPERTY LOCATION City �/LI�J/� I.�OD� St �Zip ,��1 �G Daytime , Address/L Zoning File /�-J � - 4// TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council Under the provision of Chapter 64, Section Paregraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a �ision made bythe �� Nf✓/N6� C�D/?'l�?'I !�'�10"7'� �6.h D(��UJ�� .20 �� . FileNumber: O.J — d�� (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administretive o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or £nding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. �� 1 c�/�� ch additionat sheet ifi necessary) � 4pplicanYs Signature�_�:� Date S�� City Agent � PrcTerra Design Assaciaies, Inc. May 16, 2005 Tom Beach LEIP City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Re: Application for Appeal of Site Plan Review Decision Singfe Family Residence 816 Winthrop, St. Paul, MN PDA Comm. No. 004095 For. Vinh Lee 2286 Tilsen Court, Maplewood, MN 55119 Tom: We are respectfully requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the following requested approval: 1. Site Plan Approval for a single-family residence on the existing subject property, which is Iocated in an R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. • We appreciate the assistance and guidance that fhe City Staff gave us as we developed and refined • the plans into the current submittal. It is our firm belief fhat our proposed development is responsive to the goals and objectives for the City's R1 Sinctle Familv Residential District standards and the River Corridor Standards and Criteria. This opinion was shared with us by City Staff and was reflected in their various Staff Reports that recommended approval to the Zoning Committee for the project as proposed. In spite of the Zoning Committee and Planning Commission recommendations, we are stiil excited about the positive impact that our sensitive and respectful approach for the development of this single family home will have on this unique area of the City of St. Paul. We voluntarily attended the District 1 Battle Creek/Highwood Community Council meeting as a good neighbor in order to gafher neighborhood comments that would enable us to be sensitive to the people that live next to the existing property at 816 W inthrop. Our intent was to make whatever design changes that were reasonable to show the neighbors a respectful approach. We were thoroughly surprised that the neighbors and some of the District 1 councilmembers who live in the Highwood area of St. Paul publicly stated that they were opposed to the construction of a� new home in their distinct. This raises one sign�cant point of concem that we have regarding this project which was also reflected in comments made by City Councilmember and Council President Kathy Lantry to the District 1 Baftle Creek/Highwood Community Council at one of their meetings that we attended. Specifically, if the City of St. Paul was to deny a property owner the right to construct a Iegally conforming home that is properly placed on their legally existing parcel of record, this action would be considered an inverse condemnation or taking of the properly rights of the individual property owner affected by the actions of the City. This critical issue was overlooked by the Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission in their decision making process. O ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. February 28,2005 PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Submittal for VINH LEE RESIDENCE • � � �� Page 2 February 28, 2005 Tom Beach, City of St. Paul LEIP � Re: Application for Site Plan Review, Single Family Residence at 816 Winthrop PDA Comm. No. 004095 PROECT DESCRIPTION S This existing legally conforming single-family property at 816 Winthrop was created through the City of St. Paul's lot splif approval process. This '15,208 square foot property is characterized with moderate to steeply sloping wooded terrain that ranges from a 254 elevation on the west and south sides to a 286 elevation on the northeast portion of the site. The property is surrounded by ful{y developed singfe family homes. A slope analysis was completed on the property and it was determined that there are two areas on the property with a slope of under 18 percent. The first area, along the northeasterly portion of the site, is 1852 square feet of which 613 square feet falis within the building setback line. This entire area is off to the north side of the properry and surrounded by slopes greater than 18 percent. The second area, which is located at the south central portion of the property, is 6178 square feet of which 3220 square feet ties within the buitding setback line. 'fhe fogical piacement of a home on this property would be in the centrally Iocated second area. Another ccsnsideration in the placement of a home on the property is access. With the creation of the parcel, an access easement was created to allow access from the existing driveway that serves the property to the north. This easement allows for the preservation of a significant stand of existing trees that are located at the front of the property along Winthrop. With existing slopes ranging from 10 to 14 percent on the existing driveway that provides access to this property, the design of the driveway access extension into ihis properly will be dealing wiih fairiy steep driveway grades. The proposed driveway is designed to a maximum slope of 12.5 percent. This slope is necessary to get up to the proposed building elevation of 263. The City of St. Paui's Zoning Code requires the foliowing for Residential Development on Steep Slo es (Section 63.111.(b)): "Buildings should be designed to fit into the hiliside without significant regarding to protect the stability of the slope and preserve existing trees while preventing excessively tall retaining walls and unattractive trough-shaped yards between buildings and retaining walls. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to reduce the size of the building footprint." The footprint of the living portion of the proposed home is 1302 square feet. The attached 3-car garage is only 594 square feet. The design of the home has been altered to include a fuli second floor above both the first floor of the home and the garage with the intent of minimizing the size of the building footprint. The placement and orientation of the home is narrow across the slope and parallel with the contours to minimize the need for muitiple retaining walls. In addition, the proposed home has the basement set up to be a lookout in order to avoid placing fiil at the low end of the site. An added benefit for the neighboring house to the east is that the existing 5,171.97 square foot natural wooded area that drains towards the house will be reduced to only 1,706.03 square feet of natural wooded area and lawn area that will drain towards the house. The neighboring property owner • was questioned if they have any existing drainage problem with their home and their response was, "no.° Typically drainage pattems in new subdivisions direct runoff towards common property lines. O ProTerra Design Associates, May 16, 2005 Submittal for VINH LEE RESIDENCE > 05-�4� Page 3 February 28, 2005 Tom Beach, City of St. Paul LEIP Re: Application for Site Plan Review, Single Family Residence at 816 Winthrop PDA Comm. No. 004095 The proposed grading design of the new single-family home will facilitate that towards the common property line of the existing properties to the south. In addition, rain gutters and underground piping will be utilized to direct stortnwater runoff from the roof away from the neighboring homes and towards the driveway artd to the street. The proposed main floor elevation of the house was set with the intent of minimizing the vertical scale of the home. That is why there is a short retaining wall (4.5 feet high) on the north side of the home, which allows the structure to nestle into the slope. Two other retaining walls are required in order to construct the driveway a reasonable slope and minimize the grading impact of the driveway construction to allow for preservation on the existing trees. Extending the utiliiy services to the home will also be modified from what is nortnally done in order to preserve as many trees as possible. The services for this property will be extended along the existing driveway that provides access to this property and then under the proposed driveway alignment in order to minimize the disturbance of trees on this site. A geotechnical scientist will be utilized in order to properly evaluate the soils for slope stability during and after consfruction as required by provisions in the City code. • A generous amount of landscape screening has also been included with this single family home. The proposed Iandscaping is in response to the loss of some of the trees on the property and has been � strategically placed to maximize the screening for the benefit of the neighbors as well as the future owrter of the proposed home. APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT WHEREAS, Vu H Le, file #05-068-378 has submitted for a site plan review under the provisions of 61.400 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the construction of a single family house on property located at 816 Winthrop St S, R1, legally described as Burlingfon Heights, Division No. 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota ALL That Pt Of Lots 1 Thru 3 Blk 8 And Of Vac Wildview Ave That Lies Nly And Nely Of The Fol Desc Line; Beg At A Pt On The Ely L Of Lot 1 That Is 104.08 Ft Nly Of The Sely Cor Of Sd Lot 1 Then S; and 2. WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on April 14, 2005, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §61.303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and continued their discussion of the application at the following meeting on April 28, 2005; and 3. WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substanfialty reflected in the minutes, made the following findings as required under the provisions of §61.402(c) that the site plan is not consistent with the following required findings: a. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of • the city. O ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. May 16, 2005 � Submittal for VINH LEE RESIDENCE D 5-59� Page 4 February 28, 2005 Tom Beach, City of Sf. Paul LEIP � Re: Application for Site Plan Review, Single Family Residence at 816 Winthrop PDA Comm. No. 004095 The site plan is not consistent with this finding. The site plan that was submitted for consideration was not signed by a professional or dated. COMMENT: The legal means by which a comprehensive plan is implemented is through the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The plans are in conformance with the City Codes as stated in The City of St Paul's Zoning Code requires the following for Residential Development on Steep Slopes (Section 63.111.(b)): Buildings should be designed to fd into the hillside without signifrcant regarding to protect fhe stability of the slope and preseive existing trees while preventing excessively tall retaining walls and unattractive trough- shaped yards between buildings and retaining wa!ls. Muiti-story buildings are encouraged to reduce the size ofYhe buiiding footprint." The proposed single family irome was custom designed to fit into the unique allowable building area and the sloping temain for this site. At issue is the 6 feet of vertical rise in a horizontal distance of 28 feet (29.4%) where the narrowest portion of the driveway (92 feet � wide) provides access to the legally conforming buildable area of the site. This occurs at a reasonable poinf where the feast impact would occur to the area sloped greafer fhan 18%. The City of Sf Paul must compiy with the State of Minnesota's Statutes as enforced by the State Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience and Interior Design (AELSLAGID) regarding the signing of drawings by licensed design professionals. The only drawings that are required by the State of Minnesota to be signed by design professionals are for Construction Documenfs. This can be confirmed with Doreen Frost, Executive Director of the State Board ofAELSLAGID. The drawings submitted were preliminary drawings for Zoning Committee/Planning Commission review and approval. Once the Governmenta! Body approval would be granted, construction Documenfs would be completed and submitted for Building Permit approval. Additiona/ comments were inc/uded in the submittal reviewed by lhe P/anning Commission by Tom Diamond, a residenf �egarding the legitimacy of the survey, which was complefed by Gregory Prasch, RLS of Lot Surveys Company, a Minnesota licensed Land Surveyor,• and, provided to Alan Kretman, RLA a Minnesota licensed Landscape Architect of ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. a professional planning, engineering and landscape architectural design firm who completed fhe balance of the drawings suBmitted for approvai of this project. b. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul. The site plan is not consistent with the following provisions of the River Corridor Overlay . Zoning District regulating development on steep slopes: OO ProTerra Design Associates, Inc. Submittal for May 16, 2005 � VINH LEE RESIDENCE C�5-5�� Page 5 February 28, 2005 Tom Beach, City of St. Paui LEIP Re: Application for Site Plan Review, PDA Comm. No. 004095 Single Family Residence af 816 Winthrop -"No residential development shail be permitted on slopes greater than 18 percent" in the River Corridor Overlay Zoning District. (Section 68.402.b.3) The plan shows a new driveway and other grading slopes greater than 18 percent. COMMENT: The only portion of the proposed site devetopmerrt which encroaches into the 19 percent slope, is the 28 feet by12 feet of tAe driveway as previously sfated. All other portions of the development are on slopes /e�ss than 18 percent. - "No rehabilitation slopes steeper than 18 percent" shall be permitted. (Section 68.402.c.7) The site plan shows retaining walis and rehabilitation slopes steeper than 18 percent. COMMENT: Low retaining walls are permitted in this zoning district. Three retaining walls are proposed for the driveway (4 feet, 5 feet and 5% feet higir) and one retaining wall for the house (3 % feet high) to minimize impact on tl�e natural landscape of the sife. Versa-Lok Brufe block is proposed for the retaining walls which does not require any geo-grid for walls less than 6 feet in height. Tf�erefore, there will be no rehabrlitation sfopes steeper fhan 18 percent., c. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those aspects of design, which may have substantial effects o� neighboring land uses. The site plan is not consistent with this finding. Construction of a new house grading as shown on the site plan would change the existing surface water drainage pattems on the site in a way that would create drainage problems for adjacent houses to the south of the site. COMMENT: The proposed drainage pattems were extensively analyzed and designed fo reduce the existing impact of tl�e existing undeveloped s/opes on the neighboring home located fo the southeasf of fhe proposed house.5,179.97 square feet of the undeveloped sife drains towards the neighbors house. During the design process, the neighbor was asked if they had any existing drainage issue with their house. They sfated privately that they did nof have a problem. As a result of the grading design for the proposed house, only1,706.03 square feet of the sife (an undeveloped portion)will maintain the pre-exrsting drainage pattem towards the neighbor 3,465.94 square feet of tFre pre-existing runoff will be redirected away from the neighbor's house, of which a major portion will be directed 6y design down fhe proposed driveway. � � • O ProTerra Design Associates, (nc. Submiftal for May 16, 2005 � VINH LEE RESIDENCE t� 5G� Page 6 February 28, 2005 Tom Beach, City of St. Paul LEIP � Re: Application for Site Plan Review, Single Family Residence at 816 Winthrop PDA Comm. No. 004095 d. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure abutting property and/or its occupants wili not be unreasonabiy affected. The site plan is not consistent with this finding. The development shown in the site plan would unreasonably affect abutting property due to drainage problems and the loss of existing vegetation resui6ng from construction of the proposed house and the grading and paving associated with it. COMMENT: The proposed home is on the only portion of the property that complies with the City Codes and ordinances regarding setbacks and slopes. Paragraph d. addresses the misconception of the drainage. The construction of. any single family home in this or any other portion of the City will result in the /oss oi existing vegetation. This comment is subjective and is not based on any ordinance requirement. SUMMARY Overall, we believe that we have created an environmentally sensitive approach that is also considerate to the neighboring property owners' potential concems. We are looking forward to � receiving our approvals from the City for construction of this single family home that is consistent with the way other homes that have been built in the neighborhood. Therefore, we are asking the City Council, under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission for the application of Vu H Le for a site plan review for the construction of a new single- famity house at 816 Winthrop St S to be approved. Respectfully submitted, PROTERRA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. �� / Alan A. Kretman, AICP/ASLA Director of Planning • O ProTerra Design Associates, inc. Submittal for May 16, 2005 `/ VINH LEE RESIDENCE / D5-5�� YU'OSVI53Hd btt55MN'Qppie3ldvW S .isr�wnmerir¢ivea d[lOH9 � .tN3LYd0'13n3QYtO�SLM x �f �: o� �x 8= zs a: .� ,. e ggz :� §$� :m: $�� NOIIIQNW �J1IISSIX3 � 6i[SSNW'I[Ibd'15 f �i v dONWtYM9i8 �L�f1�.�' � § - � �I'IIYSV33'ItJHIS � , * & ��$_��;� � � '�� I �� ° � � �� ` " � _ Y:$§3`an Y� $��IIIII�I g 33€°•§§Yy'' ' � 1 � � � �f:_I.111111I11 tm` fi f3§ � i�? q :�a � i i i� i � �� , i � �' � ' � �� ' ' l . \ �� 1 . �.' � f � f l f� ' I IY � � a � � o d ``\ N h N `\\ I �` `o ' `o ; 0 � � � p S ? I @P #F3 A � g. = iaC"r"aG � _ 4 i ! i T A ) Y Y - i Y} 3 �6 � 3F i n'k¢PPee.�i'.�'? � � ^ 01IS`II�t��A II �a� e � _ , ��' � Y 3 � �'- s ':E;:� 8 #;: 3 b S� `a� c�� $i� a ..;,dss..a . , _+'r� "_ � \'. � � . � , . . i � Q i ` . \ \ �'. `` . �` . ��\ , t� ' ' � o S i / i i �i '— - - - �� L b � a '` � ' �.,\``, -------_ _-=� :!'' ;' ` _o o j `- -�_ �'-� �' - a`� o ` `, �� .. �`` ' _ 6 / . '- , o ' �_ �'-__ �-,. . f,_ r ' - `"'�� j � o ' � ,lJo-, .,� . � a., . _ , i �:: "_'""... �'_ c � , � I , ! ' _" �:/ � � � � � ' _ �. . � ` so �b ._ _� -... ,-f n z '°r .` �. _ _ ' - ,' " � `\ I • ` `'��, '`` Q9L •� \ . �� ` � .-� � . ' ``� ! ` - , O '_ ' � _ ` f �� ` �`�\ � , r b s Se A ` � /[ ^ a I � ' �� ` �/ s 52 �� . ", �/' �__ I, � _ � >_ � � • � • ' • I iH✓L9LLI59�X3 SD]y �' I I >� $ u acruvtu Sf�'Y��':Y ' � .....,.>. .o�..�,.o • j� 'coomstm�w £3fii� �+�••��.... �a�Sl II o�a ozsa � a,8 3e°it. 6 , �a� I�� I� I I 3QWOUSIM £ t�E�.�f�53 � Y °� • • , � �� _ _ " � a!l11114t111 Yg : Y P" s � �g � c � $ F g f � i i� � a X5 � Z :, a - � � �S f � s� � � gs I=_= a Yj @° �� €� ?� �� $ M1 � m ' - [ � � $ _ � ; y 5 4 g 9 � a a � _ � � \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ `\ \ \ \ \ \ ° \ �— � ' \ % /' ^ �� /\ ``\ _'_ _ _ " i � ``\ i'� \� `\ � \ i'� � ` \ � 9'£9 i � \ � � \ � \ \� � � \o e 5'08 \_ � I _ � = / ai f �� / ; j , I , I � , � I ,^ �, ; �. �,. s " al' +—� �.naLnoxvis.us Ia � �I, � �.j cassa¢<1�vi�ss � I U dOtIX1.We9t8 3�N3�S�I , A'III�1V33'I'JNTS ° ; � _ � a � a � £ � ¢. . ..spzssizs 3 `€ „€ : �;BdS� a n = a«=.�....-al I i ( Z ' a e � �a � : z � °_ ° :9 ? ;:: a � 54 `s� �dE ° s ��d g � �;'3„� e H n . , . .•, � ��, � � �\`\ `� / / / i / / / / / / / / t� / / " / � . � � �` ��1� t9>Z'9(L"i59'%3 sed4-s�a .e��ve..v°.:�ev,'�.^m'° �I�� k:Y6S0'I59�1d Yd� 6 a n� ; � S � )� � ff 1 N31tNWN35119Bd 3 3ff" aiS% c E �� I 1 I�� I .�vawao't3naawo�a�sun � i$4€�if�= �� , �� I ` � = a:J.lJ I I111I I a} Ey Y° 3� s$ i: s= iq $e =6 ea Y Y_ e.: €:� �� tls +Xl •�+ i� � § Y ES SQ6 S '= z�� ;a a� s.� s: -°$ qaa 3 - s n's_ s�fli b iYC �Re� j� a �r�K : ees. A S��'� 6�} fiSg3 i 6 �SYe ;$� a4 s$ •F53 ��a � � `em,, ��o n <r \�` a��y � �. ��1 .\ � �♦ 2 H n � E € E a H .E b� . 5 § . e a 44 a� S_ g ° a � B a£{ '�": �z$ € s�x 8 _ a s� g =€ c k T d6 a 6s � aa i� °e �+g $Y 5y tta 4a �� N wp d� t• ss YE ' - g e `�3 C� a^ � €� [� XY °� b; .� sg e� a� �� ° e$ a e�e �� ='a e' e E� �� 8 e _ a r: ' "s � i U4 �`§ � d g be -�Ye�Y £ - g° €g e °_ � � s3 er : � : �s 4"e� Y g �& �£ e� ��4� 'g og � g€� �p'r.� � d b� ty e� T 6 S� F� 35 ° �X Y r � �` 4g �i £ S� $ c 3 z� x: $: �' ;� a y § '- 's�i' °s ` ' ` � a€ � = �€ z� S¢ Sfi Se �5 $ S b 3_ Y.'. �9� ap b� ,�, $ '� °��z`_e sza , -� ,� � ` �\\\� �; ea \\V" 'sa < q� i <"' e $ ' N 4 88 ¢s� � O �Y�J OtO�I � �a� p> � � 0 Q � I q _Fai z� i Ni � � m��. mx "'""E" '� � o .\ xvtazo�,n,�o�uoisox3 al�gl � --+ MIV3'Jtl1�NIVNQ��JIIlQtlH'J �{� bl[SSNW'iRtld'1S � I��/ aoaw.m,ns�e � 3:1N3�S32I c ' I i"III^IV33'IiJHIS � ; ' . 7 ° � t � §- i i¢n44=rr � � n � d$ s a:�§gY3sEF % b e,x�.;x•o.•,I I i (�� = ¢ a o � �§ 3_ Y q � i 2 ° � } B r• . . _ _ :`e s ':� � � ; es s? 6€ a�a °s_ g,a . "s ,' JV e�am�.� � = .,, ;��1� nb i553 � 54 �$a8`s �� L�e m 9£1�3'.ig'p a3i" S' n � b�^ s82 d_�.E�E3�� s ��83+ x 4 i3'x'i�&�45':3£i� \` � / �i� . \ II S F Q Y � Y � 5_ � �n a i� � '� 5 � {& s s �� 9 `� ':; �° ° a s �� a '•,� E�a +' 5 3 S � 4 � i e F - SY 5� 4e $_ a=, a y> sa5 `� e-;$� aaa � =z e s � ° si E g Ss � : S9 � d Eg ' s.. s'-'- � � • Ca �5 �'i,6 �SYL'9L'[flX3 ^ d KI>OWIfl�Nd �§Yy�Y�D�^ � II III�� s��sswv'aaon3lam `<S.tY�.#s @�".•'� � .�sv3tanmKiS¢c�c p a3:��2�Ex � 0O g I I �aor�aonoo m;`- 3 - �, � d�3 � I I I I I I 1 � � F _�� cb �� t� f s ¢� E Y� ?ys ¢ky �� [q � �� g�� E1 �� a � r� �� a�. s; �s `��;2 � 0S $�;� +c e � E€� �� s 9fi � = s a ESI �;� 'a e�� T e a� 9cs :� Y@33 'F 4= ��s §d' fl�g $�k Zk� ��4 ��§ 7�4 o- € 8 o- 3'a 6 a�i y ��= � a Z Y $ [ s a oa % � � ,� � '� � �'� �� \ 'o � �� o � � J e � `,\ o \ � � \ � \ \ ,� \ $ � \ � � \ \ ��\ `\\ \ � ��\ \ � \ \ � �\ \ � \ ° \ e � ,,\ \\ 2 �� '�( / / � �a` � ,�\ \ � \ �( \ \ _ i � ' � � / �� I j : � � ° �� S � xxo.v�n.�u�v.t. a � � .-. m�nmvinva'.is �� dONH{N(m9B �L�.' �.�x tt��'.��.�� • q 1 ��Y �I��f / / / / / � / / t so _ ; �o � - I D W , % i 'o � / � /.'^ ` % � 6 �, �� / / ` �� e��ee a�EEE _, �� ,= e�eee�ee��ee�ee�� E� � .,. eec��eee�e�meee �� (�l b5-54� ecroaei�snw �gp� 6'm6 s.. �� I� NYtd3filJSQN�'S s�g N 4EH��v ti 6[iSSNW�QOOM31dtlW �vaa�� 5 .csr3tnna�H3sntssa € i4.YtS�F: �� , � �� I � I I I � I �IT3�$32I £ � a d[lOX9 3 Ia�F§FY�; � � � ; .c�swdmanaa woasrm � I'IIY�IV3 3'I'JDIIS ° • ° � �:.1JJIIIIil1 _.... } `:' 4 4 } a ? "v � E € Y a ° s �E 'S 4 � ' q ` f�s q � ! $� L� 3 �' e� f 3 3 _ S - i � §ai � 3 ¢ ° t ` Q c'vf ; _ t ��° � € 3 : Y o� � s'-O g q s S "' a$ gy� a�' ��:� F l' U�� 5 g gy �°��# q e C epRn Ae_ � $ �::@v��§ — _; ,z .�§ . e i ;s x a _I ' 1 � • 1 �- �5-59� '�►J s,..�:� '��i lii tsresu�r.m'zi • a -.-�s.- 6:�enen.n�xe gy g — tnsseas'aoon�arw °"��` 81 i� � I .uvaixna�>ranusea �£i�Fa'st= � • � ��Q� °� � F,�;§,�� `� �� • � � .� � �� 7 n � g e.�JA � � �� i5'.:R ig3ssff 3a3:nz ` � 9 8� :i E33 p6 . _ 6 e 31e a F7 "a �c ��ag @f ' � e �- 3 $ $ °e� q 49 ""�i§ fs � G� ; � �F t i �": ,� � } a i � :s ea EE i ': Y2 � Y c � Y ¢t € I$ T S� C �] � y9 �5 3 �: j �g z ��P �� °'� �P [ S e 6s x 5�% �Y ¢ 3„Tye i@@ 'si 9 gi � �z �' 3� 1 �: � �a 1 'j 6 �� 3 � � 5 � Y �+3� ° a- � } a 72o F� i a"' 64 � "� n� 5 !q� ie & Cez #1 9 P a x z a F�� x �� s } `_ ) Y Y� : � s� f s] a'� � ?o �7 — " It 5" 6 a c g9 $ �� p' s� � �a 3: ffC= � 4Y i� 'vP9 P _ � Y E � �� 4 $ �e �S a � �a t Y3 � si G x @: i„ � j Y � E �� ¢� P i� � 6 f CS $� U V �" 'e _ !i �° ° � { W3 � S[i 8�^ ¢ �f :�� 'P€4 ' " 3 3� Yi ; �i qe I 'Y � i s 3 i %} T ¢ � x `g_ 9: � �3 j� e 'v_� �§ 4_ i� ° e R3 �3 � f� �`Ye 8 $ �� .E' 4 S� E�9 iII`s g yl< .-y SIId73Q3ddJS4Nd'I a �I�� I M snsse� I �S a dOHIS3MN918 � '�'.7��.�� I� .I'IIINF/33IiJNIS � i I� � "€ se � � x s n;s � ¢ �3i 4 s €s � 4 . q �A� � �� E+ °� g � �� 3 .€ `g3 � � �Ss a 3 4 i `i`i �4§ E�� y gi �a'�'+ °� T 3� T r� g� 94� i� °ic z'ia !� � Y g�'e £�� 'E9 S': �3n� ;1§q S 6. 3� e y � 8e` xd� i a� :�S�sB ¢€a' �� ° �3 E�'n�sl�?, Fe' 6§g YR; 6�e� AY �E�E ''-�} ° pIi63;6F ;�€ s b: 4g: €gi� 6 `q e��' g�F�>;� sc_ 8$_ ;�s iaa� i as @ Y $ss x x.. ��iY Y Y'ye�� YrgS x6 �� @� :E:°.. ; - €. ° a_ v � s ` 3 ��4�A 3. Q i' $ip ;� ' 2 � F ��a si � $ � � "�' � ' r a�=3's$ E `s g;_ s p : a:6 �� 4� § � i Y��e�� y' g E9 �� a p ei '� � p C y` g � p'Ti �. a� § S gy si ezd� }` ��} q° 6 .#� ' a s Yg ?3 e s � 8 :! �; : �35g 5i } g � �f �a `e?� � 3� � 5e S: ` a� x � g� �d¢ F�q e¢ Y`. z� 93 : ' s, [F `� �9SY§ a'y'Q a e¢ =; : s€a' :34 ° s : 's_'e �0 4 4�� #� $ .� != s v s:Si �°s' � t: $Y@$g t .. 34 " � x $Y SE p 6 Y�q p� iq i� 9 S g ':' Fa '6�p s� . �€� '.€$ °# °.�! 0 rz �� 's��3 ge� a ?S 44 : !Y° gqn > �,*y� 6 ��$� x.; Q -§_;�; 3 ��¢�� 'n_gg z�a g 7�:�� =;� ' � j i L� '5 4 a �ys�y i;; & r3S9F �A: ��g� ��- � �_ � �€ s;� s y � 4 , � g �#s � f g x¢ag �!�€: g€ s,�� e �$ � 2 e� f� 5° �� v i A ;� 'gZ. ¢ _ q' xF 3��;4 �i 2�'�yx f�� 'x4e � 3 I i �� 3i •�e � '� q Y Y 2 } x �v_ - p _ �� p � ¢ g.. i�� 7 §x '> ` e� �A4 �3� ��$$� s�3 ';8a 3�� F Y S; ECy vj� f�e_'� i�� §a� � g g � gF .y ; e �as {$;� �6sI. sFa !$4 i $ c � ` �k �%: ?%& �S3 :.� ';��€ I " g� �g ¢ �'g�' � S�x� eYY� � - [9 9g�i�S 3. 3 !' .$ .:3 i' 586qg� �3�� `}i�v z S°q e 'v :ap x�3°�. e�,2 e y3 44 °- 4 ye � P e`Si. � -- @$ ` S � 6 4 p y:e� YgYy e 3z � " �3$� ]P. iX�i�S �9aT: ��§z � C�5-5q�, City of Saint Paul_ Planning Commission Resolution File Number 05-53 Date Ma�r 6�2005 WHEREAS, Vu H Le, File # 05-068-378, has submitted for a site plan for review under the provisions of 61.400 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the construction of a single-family house on property located af 816 Winthrop St S, R1, legaily described as Buriington Heights, Division No. 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota All That Pt Of Lots 1 Thru 3 Blk 8 And Of Vac W ildview Ave That Lies Nly And Nely Of The Fol Desc Line; Beg At A Pt On The Efy L Of Lot 1 That Is 104.08 Ft Nly Of The Sely Cor Of Sd Lot 1 Then S; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on April 14, 2005, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §61.303 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and continued their dicussion of the applicafion at the following meeting on Apri128,2005; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public fiearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made fhe following findings as required under fhe provisions of §61.402(c) fhat the site plan is not consistent with the fotlowing required findings: 1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and devetopmenf or project plans for sub-areas of the city. The site plan is not consistent wifh this finding. The site plan that was submitted for consideration was nof signed by a professionaf or dafed. 2. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul. The site plan is nof consistent with the following provisions of #he River Corrido� Overlay Zoning District regu(ating development on steep slopes: moved by Morton seconded by in favor Unanimous to deny against � • � I� �-59� � Zoning Fife # 05-06&378 Planning Commission Resolufion Page 2 "No residential development shail be permitfed on slopes greafer than 18 percenY' in the River Corridor Overlay Zoning District. {Section 68.402.b.3) The plan shows a new driveway and ofher grading on slopes greater than 18 percenf. -"No rehabilifation slopes steeper than 18 percenY' shail be permitted. (Section 68.402.c.7) The site plan shows retaining walis and rehabilita6on slopes sfeeper than 18 percent. 3. Profection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such matte�s as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those aspects of design which miay f�ave substantial effects on neighboring land uses. The site plan is not consistent with this finding. Construction of a new house and grading as shown on the site ptan would change the existing surface water drainage patterns on the site in a way that wouid create drainage problems for adjacent houses to the south of the site. , 4. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure abutfing property and/or its occupants wilf not be unreasonably affected. • The site plan is not consistent with this finding. The development shown in the site plan would unreasonalby affect abutting property due to drainage problems and the loss of existing vegeation resulting from construction of the proposed house and the grading and paving associated with it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Planning Commission, under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, that the applicafion of Vu H Le for a site plan review for fhe construction of a new single-family house at 816 Winthrop St S is hereby denied. • /� 05-�'-r�, MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, Aprii 28, 2005 - 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3rd Fioor City Hall and Court House 15 West Keilogg Boutevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: STAFF: Alton, Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Kramer, Mejia, and Morton Anfang Tom Beach, Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson and Peter Wamer The meefing was chaired by Commissioner Morton. Winthrop Single-Family Home - 05-068-378 - Site Plan Review for a new single-family house at 816 Winthrop Street Tom Beach presented the staff report with a recommendation to approve the site pian with conditions. Mr. Beach spoke about issues that had pused some confusion at the public hearing: the process that was followed on the lot split that created the lot in question, blufF lines, slopes and setbacks. At the question of Commissioner Kramer Mr. Beach explained that after the application was denied by staff in March 2004, the applicant was given the choice of reapplying for the lot split and paying a rtew fee or leavirtg the case open artd making revisions to the lot originat split application. Mr. Sodefiolm explained that this is not an unusual practice with land subdivisions because they generally have problems that can be fixed. It often consists of the way the surveyor has described the property. An action has to be made within a certain amount of time, the work that the applicant is paying the City to do doesn't need to be repeated. When someone applies for a lot split it is referred to the Sewer Engineer, Water Department, Traffic Engineer, City Surveyor, etc., Each of them reviews it and makes comments, pertaining to how sewer and water services will be delivered to the parcel, access to City streets etc. When aIl that work is done, if there are going to be some minor changes to fix one of those aspects, there is no need to have a new file open on the same piece of property and to charge the person a fee to have a new case when all the work has been done and one small thing is being ehanged. Mr. Soderholm also explained that it is a contingent denial and the applicant can ask the Planner to keep the file open to make changes. At the quesfion of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Soderholm stated the District Council was kept informed throughout the process and they responded to the City Staff that they had no objection to the lot split provided there were no variances required. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Soderholm explained that opening a new file requires a lot of staff time and to open a new case for one piece of information would be inefficient and costly to the client. Mr. Wamer suggested that the Pfanning Commissioners may want to give staff some guidelines � • � ' b C��-5�� . Zoning Fife # 05-068-378 April 28, 2005, Zoning Commiftee Minutes Page 2 to handle applirations consistently. Upon question ofi Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Beach stated thai the second survey done by PDA would be the one that is accurate. Upon question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Soderholm explained that the applicant gave the City a written indefinite extension and did not put in an appeal. The applicant chose to make the required changes the City Staff recommended. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm stated that the discussion consisted of the applicant obtaining an easement across the adjacent property so that a driveway could be buiit without crossing the steep slopes at the front of the property. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Beach explained that staff did not require a variance for slopes for the driveway because the slopes affected by the driveway had a change of grade of oniy about 6'. Staff has interpreted the code in the past to mean that these slopes do not need a variance since staff did not think it was the intent of the code to regulate minor changes in grade. He gave the subdivision off of Skyway Drive as an example where "there was a 5 or 6-foot drop that was created and that did not require a variance to create a road: ` • Commissioner Kramer stated that he is not convinced that variances aren't needed and in order to preserve the residents and the applicants ability to get a timely position that this should be acted on today and he moved denial of the Site Plan Review on the basis that Variances were needed and lack of conclusive information regarding the need for variances and also the site plans received were not signed and dated by the applicant. Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen seconded the motion. Based on questions from Mr. Warner, Commissioner Kramer confirmed that his motion to deny was based on staff report findings number 1, 2, 4, and 5 not being met. Mr. Beach explained that the plans were not signed because they were submitted electronically. Commissioner Alton, Donnelly-Cohen, Gordon, Faricy, Mejia, and Morton voted in favor of Commissioner Kramer's motion to deny with each stating for the record.that they also concurred with Commissioner Kramer's justifications for denying the site plan. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Adopted Drafted by: • Carol Martineau Recording Secretary Yeas - 7 Nays - 0 Submitted by: Tom Beach Zoning Section Approved by: Gladys Morton Chair i / a�-5a� MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, April 74, 2005 - 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hali and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT EXCUSED STAFF: Aligada, Alton, Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Kramer, and Morton Anfang, Gordon, and Mejia Tom Beach, Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, and Peter Wamer The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton. Winthrop Single-Family Home - 05-068-378 - Site Plan Review for a new single-family house at 816 Winthrop Street Tom Beach presented the staff report with a recommendation of approval with conditions for the Site Plan Review. He aiso stated District 1 recommended deniai. He also talked about a change from what was stated in the staff report: the new water service for the house wouid have Yo come in thro�gh the front yard but direcSonat borfng couid be used fo instafl fhe fine so trees wouid not be affected. At the question of Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen, Mr. Beach explained how the stortn water would be directed and stated there would not be a problem with drainage. He also stated they would have to have gutters on the house. Upon the question of Commissioner Morton, Mr. Wamer stated the Zoning Code gives authority to the Planning Administrator to administratively approve lot splits as long as the application meets the criteria. !f the application is dertied, the applicant can appea(. If tfie applicant submitted a new application and decided not to appeal, that is the applicants decision. Upon question of Commissioner Morton, Mr. Beach stated the applicant came in with one design that didn't meet the code and about three months later presented a new plan. He also stated he would research the lot split. Allan Kretmen, representative of the applicant, gave a report on how the lot spiit went through the review process. He explained how the parcel was being developed and how the water will be brought from the street to the house using directionaf boring so fhat the trees would not be harmed. Ann Mueller, District 1 Community Council, expiained that they recommend deniai because it goes against the Highwood Plan, includin the provision prohibiting development on steep slopes. Julie Crisp, 850 Winthrop St., submitted a petition with 96 signatures in opposition of the development. She also stated they were deprived of fheir right to appeal the City's action on the lot split. Ms. Crisp atso stated the proposed devefopment of the property violates the Highwood Plan and the Mississippi River Corridor Standards. She also stated they had s �1 � • /� ! � � �, • Case # OS-068-378 Apri! 14, 2005, Zoning Page 2 r1 LJ Committee Minutes concems with water and drainage problems. She also reiterated they were informed that the City denied the lot split and was not not�ed that the City reversed the decision so they did nof have the opportunity to appeai the decision. Tom Diamond, 2'I 19 Skyway Drive, handed ouf material depicting fhe bluff area and the steepness of the siopes. He also stated this development would need numerous variances to be approved. He also gave a history of the lot spiit and how no one was notified to appeai the lot spiit. He aiso stated this parcel is protected by the State and Federal govemment and explained how that came about. He aiso depicted the code and how it pertains to the slopes, and bluff lines. Art Wiikinson, 830 S. Winthrop St., said the plan affected steep slopes and he had concerns pertaining to the drainage. Alan Kretman, the applicant, stated that the lot split action went through a due process and is now a legal lot that has been approved by the City. He aiso stated the design complies with the sprit, intent, and the letter of the zoning code. He aiso explained that the property was surveyed twice with a certified survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor and additional points shot on the property. He also explained how the slopes were measured and it is 100 percent accurate. He also went on to explain the retaining walls would be built. Mr. Kretman, gave a history on how he was involved with the river corridor codes and stated he was confident that everything complies wifh the City Codes. He also explained how they would direct the water flow and stated it would not affect the other properties. He also stated if the property is not ailowed to be built on it wouid be considered an inverse condemnation and the City wouid be heid liable to purchase the property. They are not touching any of the stopes that are higher than 18 percent. Their intent is to preserve most of the property in its existing condition and to protect the trees. The public hearing was closed. At the question of Commissioner Aiton, Mr. Beach reiterated that the project meets the 18 percent slope and stated the house can be built without any variances of the slopes. Commissioner Gordon suggested to extend the 60 days and a lay over to get certain questions resolved pertaining to the land slopes. Commissioner Faricy moved to lay the case over to April 28, 2005, of the Site Plan f2eview. Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen seconded the motion. Adopted Drafted by: Yeas - 5 Nays - 0 Submitted by: Approved by: ��?G?�tid3z, Gladys orton Chair 1 �"I E 1 , � �� Caroi Martineau om Beach Recording Secretary Zoning Section o��S9� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIItONMENTAL PROTECTION Janeerz Rosas, Director CTTY OF SAIN"P PAUL Randy C. Ke[ly, Mayor Date: 4/25/05 To: Zoning Committee From: Tom Beach LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILDING Telephone: 657d66-9090 , 350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 Facsimile: 65l-26b9724 SaintPaul,Minnesota55702-ISIO Web: wxnv.ci.stp¢ul.mn.ur/[iep RE: Site pian review for a new single-family house in the River Corridor Overlay District at 816 Winthrop The Zoning Committee held a pubiic hearing on April 14 on this case The Committee laid the case over until April 28 and asked staff to report back with more information on some of the issues raised at the hearing. Lot sptit Staff originally denied the application for lot split in March 2004 on the grounds that the lot could not be developed to meet zoning standards for building on steep slopes: - A driveway could not be built from the street to the house through the front yard due to the steep slopes in the front yard. � - There was not enough land with slopes less than 183'o to buitd a house on. Staff interpreted the regulations to mean that no portion of a house could be on slopes greater than 18%. The applicant did not appeal the decision to deny the lot split. Another option for the appliqnt would have been to submit a new application. The appliqnt sent a letter to PED in April asking them to "extend the City's deadline for approvi�g my !ot split application" and based on this letter, staff allowed the applicant to keep the application open instead of requiring her to resubmit a new applicafion. Staff reviewed the lot split again and determined fhat it could meet slope standards. Two things changed since the original decision to deny: - An altemative route for fhe driveway was proposed. This route used the existing driveway on the adjacent lot and then came into the subject lot at a point where it avoided the steep slopes in the front yard. - Staff met as a group to discuss the method for measuring slopes for the house and determined that the code allows construction of a house where the average slope of the building pad is less than 18% since this is more consistent with the language for lot splits that says "no lot shall be created where the building pad for a principle structure has an existing slope steeper than 18% °(Section 69.406a.5) Staff approved the lot slit in September 2004 with a condition that an easement must be obtained to permit this lot access via the euisting driveway on the adjacent driveway. (A more detailed chronology of the lot spit is attached.) Bluff line The Zoning Code prohibits development in the River Corridor Overlay Zoning District within 40' of the • bluffline. The bluffline is defined as "a line along the top of certain steep slopes facing the Mississippi River Valley as shown on the River Corridor Zoning Maps. In any particular case, tfie bluffline shall 2� c�-5�� mean a line drawn along the top of the biuff such that the slope below the line is steeper than eighteen (18) percent and the slope above is eighteen (18) percent or less "(Section 60.203.b) • Staff's position is that the bluffline in this area is cleariy shown on the River Corridor Zoning Maps and it is across the street and over 100 feet from the site in question. (See fhe attached map.) Although there are slopes steeper than '18 percent on the site, these siopes are not the biuffline. An opposing position was presented at the hearing that says there can be multiple blufflines and you must look at each particular case and determine whether a slope steeper than 18 percent facing the river is a bluff. This position said that bluff was interrupted by the grading that had been done to construct Winthrop Street and the steep slopes in the front yard of 816 Winthrop were an continuation of the bluff. Slopes The Zoning Code says "no residential development shall be permitted on slopes greater than eighteen (18) percenY' in the River Corridor Overlay Zoning District. (Section 68.402.b.3) Staff said that the house and driveway avoided 18 percent slopes but people speaking in opposition to the site plan disagreed. One source of disagreement was the method used to determine where there are 18 percent slopes on a siie. - When staff measures how the steepness of a slope, we look at the areas where the slope between 2' contour lines on the grading plan is steeper than 18%. These areas are shown on the grading plan submitted by the applicant. The plan shows that the existing slope in the area of the proposed house, measured this way, are less than 18%. - One person who spoke in opposition said that ihe areas of steep slopes shouid include everywhere • where that average grade over 50' is steeper than 18% even if that includes areas where the change in grade betweeen 2' contour lines is less than 18%. Using this method would include some of the area where the house is proposed to go. Another source of disagreement was the grades for ihe driveway. The existing grade where the new driveway would enter the site goes up 6 feet in approximately 30 feet. - An issue that has come up on other projects in the River Corridor is how large does a slope need to be before it is counted. If any slope is included, no mater how small, any small dip or hump in the land could not be touched and many properties in the river corridor would be unbuiidable. Staff has wrestled with this issue on previous projects and does not think that this was the intent of the steep slope restrictions. So staff has allowed disturbances such as driveways on minor slopes where the 18% slopes have a change of grade less than 9 feet. The driveway proposed here would be permitted under that standard. - Peopie opposed to the project said that there is nothing in the regulations about minimum slopes so the existing grade for the driveway must be counted and it does not meet ihe siope standards. Setback Houses must be set back at least 25' from the rear properry line. Staff said that the proposed house met this standard. The shape of the lot is irregular and there is a method specified in the zoning code for determining rear yard setbacks in cases like fhis one. Staff applied this method and found that the proposed house met all setback requirements. An opposing position was presented at the hearing that that argued that the rear property line was more extensive than what staff had determined and therefore the house did not meet the 25' setback • requirement. (See attached exhibit on setbacks.) 2� 05-�� )EPARTMENT OF PLANNJNG . 3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � � sresmixrmberty, D'veecror 011.., CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL R¢ndy C. KeZZy, Mayor September 3, 2004 Ms_ Joan Nelson 846 Winthrop StreeY South Saint Paul, Minnesota 55119 RE: Subdivision 846 Winthrop Street Zoning Fi�e #04-050-292 Dear Ms. Nelson:, . 25 WestFmmh Street Telephone: 651-2666�00 SaintPmJ, A2NSSIO2 Facrimi7e: 651-22&3220 This letter is to inform you that the lot spfit application for the above referenced property has been approved and is in compliance with the City of Saint PauPs subdivision regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1. A shared driveway access easement agreement shall be recorded on the deeds of both Pazcels � A and B. Due to the steep slope, the City requires using the existing driveway on Parcel A as the access to Patcel B. 2. The purchaser of Parcel B sha11 pmvide a tree preservation plan to the City when site plan or building pemut applications aze filed. 3. The current addressing is out of sequence. Pazcel A will be readdressed to 812 Winthrop and Parcei B to 816 Winthrop. The enclosed stamped and signed survey as approved by the Planning m;n; �tor aze your record of subdivision approval by the City of Saint Paui. A stamped and signed survey is required by Ramsey County in order to record tfie conveyance of any of the parcels described on the survey. You are responsible for talffng the appmved survey to the Ramsey County Department of Property Records and Revenue and getting it recorded. Any interested party may appeal this decision by the Planning Administrator to the Planning Commission within ten days as provided under Section 61.701 of the Zoning Code. Thank you for your time and cooperation. I may be contacted aY 266-6583 if you ha�e auy further questions. . � - - '�E� ..�:. �,/ t ..� �• •... . �.. ' � .�, • Z'Z • en nn� ccnc_i..s O � i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELAPMENf Martha G. Fullv� Direcwr �� CTTY OF SAII�iT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor Mazch 25, 2004 Ms. Joan Nelson 846 Winthrop Street South Saint Paul, Minnesota 55119 RE: 846 Winthrop Street South Lot Split Zoning file #Q4050-291 Dear Ms. Nelson: 25WestFounhStreet Tnlephone:651-266-6�00 SaintPau7,MNSSl02 Facrbnile:651-228-3?20 This letter is to inform you ihat your subdivision application for the above referenced property has been denied because it does not comply with the City of Saint Paul's subdivision regulations. The lot spiit you have proposed does not meet City staadazds for lots on steep slopes. Section 67304 (7) of the Zoning code states that no lot shall be created where the building pad azea for the principal structure has an existing slope steeper than eighteen (18) percent or where a driveway steeper than twenty (20) percent is required to reach the building site. The new lot you are proposing is too steep to meet ttiese standazds, which aze designed to reduce the risk of erosion, damage to neighboring property, and over-development of hillsides. You may apply for a variance from these standards. Variances aze handled by 7ohn Hardwick of the office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP} at 256-9082. Variances aze a sepazate process with a separate application fee and a public hearing at the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Unless you are granted a variance for the steepness of your lot, the Planning Administrator can't approve your application for a lot split. If you decide to apply for a variance, please also send me a request to extend the City's deadline for approving or denying your lot split application. With an extension I can hold your application open until we have the BZA's decision and you won't have to reapply for the lot split. � c,. >.,�� :�x`�.�5-5�� _-- .. � _-' ; _ ; ` paae 2 7oan Nelson Zonina file #04-050-291 Any interested party may appeal this decision by the Planning A�**>;n; arrator to the Planning Commission within.thirty days of the date of this letter. You can reach me at 266-6583 for any fiuther assistance. Sincerely, ��•r--e ��t'�' - l Paul Dubruiel PED Zoning (for the Planning Administrator) r � i 2�( Z;5-54� � Ms. joan. H Netsmr. 846 Wia�tluop St S Saiatt PauC MfI�� 55ll9-5649 �-2-v� � R ��v.c Dv�t i` t� , e ; �,��s�� 'N° ��{c �- �Ty s I,��AUzi,✓� �'v� A-P��viNG • �,�,� ��a�cvr✓ , � y �� s p 1� i T � � � �B � N �I �� D � �� 5 p r� 1'� �C � Y�, Lv r �v � � � y�� y. I �� a-L�, _ - i � 2�� b5 sci�uvs�n sa 3's}I��a e „�-°�',�,,,'+� �� g Iti�IIVr�dOT3A3¢YiOOSTM ��S€� z Sf� � �� g ' �� •°Y - ,'.� g��,�� ss�� ;�� a ta�& � : ff � JJ�I(II111 .g 3� �� 3� �� 3` s� ga '�F � �� 5;,z A: �� z�3 > 5F �� a k �3g S� `s ! - 9 E�; $ � 3� y�, �� :� \ � e a x 9 § � � & ig $a e� 5� s sY �e $ $� S ° 3Y� F §c= 3 `"e §�p �zx h C :� �� i �i> j2 b6 a � �� 3 s 'a 3� S� eY I�� y `}"s �€ SY Sy �`� ° 9 C� �= e �$ qY °_8 � � e� g[�r`� g �� 8$ E e E �� 9 g �L � h �e i"s P - �' 3 9 f� � � - � g y6 �� ;� � ��9 �g e.�. �S�?� £ 3� 9 3 �e 2 �� a s €'' � �� Y Yg �Y EP � �' - _ $'$ e a�€'_ .� ��e.� cs�, �ry � e i � � � � � I< < p � ` O i � a � 8p oK¢ 'J. W W g E'c4 ' o i �¢� a i mra � m i u� � & NVId"IONINOJNOLSON3 6 � � � � UNV3'�dHINn'HQ"JHIQVH'J S cr� ursesv f � U dOMII.V' M9B aJta�53TI F z�ua�c�rus ' � ` a �..a.e.,.a. � ,. 5 � m.m,_.s._ �� ea� R 3 � ¢ ; S 'v'n � � ; g Efr6$8�Y5 a 3€ E3HHB5�33� P ° � .. ' .......... . . a�=.�x...-al i f Z�t� e A � � p � Y � e � �� ya Yi`v s �'�u � � � i$ i! e�$ � ]3� � . � G • •• • izs 1 � eb%$s.m.a o �._ ��. �r�i, N � ;a zr3a � a e5�s $sa` � 3'x 5n .."s` a para�r ,3 • ._ _� g4� s� $� �i,g8 s �'_- i / ✓ � � � �7 � x� ` � 1l..� � � .^ � � �f s S ' ; 1� .s 'a a S p � € g �a a �� s E p s �. � $8 a 9n y gs g� �5 �" €i �� !; F� �� n3 �n E 5 % 3 � & � § ° z G a. s 9� � !"q £_ :S 3 �� 8 ��$� i�.co4°�a Y � Y 8 � �� Y � � � a a n� � � � � � C�S�SaC� � � i _ t .�! � � � � � U � • L � � i Q � � � � A = t0 � � � N 'C O • O U o U o �� ,�� .� . � U .` � N r Q U �L � � � � N C � 0 0 C� C `` C c4 t9 U � U 'a � � � � g � t� i-m e � �� o - r ►.�..� . _ � � J J 4� = �. .� '-� %s� _----------- _ , � .%�-- ;�- r :i -'r''O" ,-'' - . :��:� ,,- - ,� ° , = ;� . /' f, N , . �.. V • : � . �. � @ C�5 -�Q� ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT � � � FtLE # 05 068378 1. APPLICANT: Vinh Le HEARING DATE: 4/14/05 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Site Plan Review 3. LOCATION: 816 Winthrop Street South 4. PIN 8� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 142822120073 Burlington Heights, Division No. 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota All That Pt Of Lots 1 Thru 3 Blk 8 And Of Vac Wiidview Ave That Lies Niy And Nely Of The Foi Desc Line; Beg At A Pt On The Ely L Of Lot 1 That Is 104.08 Ft Nly Of The Sety Cor Of Sd Lot 1 Then S 5. PLANNING DISTRICT: PRESENT ZONING: R1 and RC3 6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.402.a.9 61.402.c 7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 4/1J05 (revised 4/21/05) BY: Tom Beach 8. DATE RECEIVED: 2/23/05 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 4/24/05 A. PURPOSE: Site plan review to build a single-family house in the River Corridor Overiay Zoning District B. PARCEL SIZE: 15,208 square feet C. EX{STING LAND USE: Vacant - D. SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Single-family house (R1) East: Single-famify house (R1) South: Single-family house (R1) West: Single-family house (R1) E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Site plan review is required for any development in the River Corridor that affects slopes of twelve (12) percent or greater. (Section 61.402.a.9) A site plan must meet 11 criteria in order for the City to approve it. (Section 61.400.c) These are discussed below. "No residentiai development shall be permitted on slopes greater than 18 percent° in the River Corridor Overlay Zoning District (Section 68.402.b.3) Development in the River Corridor is defined as "the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land including, but not limited to: a reconstruction, alteration of the size, or material change in the external appearance, of a structure or the land...." (Section 60.205.d) • F. HISTORY: The parcel at 816 Winthrop was created in 2004 by splitting it from a larger parcel at 846 Winthrop. The lot spiit was approved by staff in September 2004. Before approving the lot split, staff made a determination that the lot could be developed and that a �� -5�i/ house could be built on the lot that would meet the River Corridor restrictions on developing on steep slopes. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: Staff has not received an official response from � District 1 H. FINDINGS: Section 62.108(c) of the Zoning Code says that in "order to approve the site plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with" the findings listed below. 1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the city: The site plan is consistent with this finding. The 1995 Highwood Development Policies call for preserving mafure trees and steep slopes. Given the constraints of where the building be located on the site due to setbacks and steep slopes, the site plan is consistent with these policies. (See finding 2 about slopes.) 2. Applicable ordinances of the Crfy of Saint Paul. The site plan is consistenfwith this finding. The site plan meets the standard requirements for setbacks and lot coverage for a single family house. In addition the site plan is consistent with the following: - River Corridor Overlay Zoning District 7his property is located in the River Corridor Overlay Zoning District. Section 68.402.b.3 says that in this district °no residential development shall be permitted on slopes greater than 18 percent". The lot has areas where the existing slopes are greater than 18%. These areas are shaded on the site plan. (The existing grades on the plan are based on a survey done by Lot Surveys Company , Inc.) The existing slopes where the house would be located are less than 18% (although they are close to 18% in some areas). There are existing slopes steeper than 18°k in some areas near the north property line where the new driveway would be located. The existing grade where the new driveway would enter the site goes up 6 feet in approximately 30 fieet. There are not any altemative locations for the driveway where the slope is less steep. When projects in the River Corridor have been reviewed in the past, questions have come up about how to apply the rules for developing on steep slopes. One of these questions is how large does a slope need to be before it is counted. If any slope is included, no mater how small (such as a change of grade of 2 feet in 10 feet), many properties in the river corridor would be unbuiidable. Staff has wrestled with fhis issue on previous projects and does not think that this was the intent of the steep slope restrictions. So staff has allowed disfurbances such as driveways on minor slopes where the change in grade is less than 18% measured over a horizontal distance of 50 foot (9 feet or less in 50 feet. ) The driveway proposed here would be permitted under that standard. r - Residential Development on Steep S/opes Section 63.111.b regulates residential • development on steep slopes. It says °buildings should be designed to fit into the hiliside without significaRt regrading 10 protect the stability of the slope and preserve exisfing trees while preventing excessively tall retaining walls and unattractive trough- 3a i �5-�91 shaped yards between buildings and retaining walls. Multi-story buildings are encouraged to reduce the size of the buiiding footprint." s �, � u The proposed house has been designed with a look-out basement to fit into the topography of the site and minimize the need for grading around tfie house. The house will be multi-story to reduce the size of the buiiding footprint. 3. Preservation of unique geologiq geographic or historically sign�cant characteristics of the city and environmentally sensitive areas. The site plan is consistent with this finding. The area where the house can be located is limited by the required setbacks and areas of steep slope. Within that area, the house and driveway have been located to minimize the need to regrade the site and remove existing trees near the house. 4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sighf buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses_ The site pla� is co�sistent with this finding. Surface water drainage has been addressed. (See finding 8.) Landscaping is proposed, especially along the south property, line to replace existing trees that will be removed and to screen the house. 5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assu�e abutting property and/or its occupants will not be un�easonably affected. The site plan is consistent with this finding. The building has been located to minimize grading and loss of trees as much as possible. 6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and elevation of structures. The site plan is consistent with current practices for energy conservation. 7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits and parking areas within the site. The site plan is consistent with this finding. Traffic will use a new dPiveway that wiil tie into an existing driveway on the adjacent property at 846 Winthrop. 8. The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development. The site ptan is consistent with this finding. Sanitary sewer and water is avaiiabfe in Winthrop. Sewer and water services will be brought into the sit by methods that will minimize disturbances of the site. The sanitary sewer will be brought in from the street to the house under the existing and proposed driveways. Saint Paul Regional Water Services wil( not permit this routing since it would go across the adjacent property. So the water service will be brought in direcfly from fhe sfreet across the front yard of fhe property but using a technique called directional boring that will not affect the steep s/opes or trees in the front `-� � p5- 5G6 yard of the property. Storm water falling on the sife currenf(y drains to the south. A new house and driveway wili � introduce impervious surface to the site. However, the site plan will address drainage issues. Storm water falling north of house will be directed to the driveway. Most of the water falling on the roof will also be directed to the driveway by gutters. From the driveway, storm water wili flow drain out to the street so that is will not affect neighboring properties. 9. S�cient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives. The site plan is consistent with this finding. Retaining walis will be constructed along the north side of the house and along the driveway where needed to work with existing grades. New trees and large shrubs will be planted on the site, especially along the south property line where the new house will be visible to neighbors. 10. Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible roufes. The site plan is consistent with ADA requirements as they apply to single-family homes.. 11. Provision for erosion and sediment control as specifred in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and Control Hand600k" The site plan is consistent with this finding. An erosion and sediment control consistent with the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and Control Handbook" has been submitted. � STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings above, the staff recommends approval of the site plan to allow construction of a single family home at 816 Winthrop Street South subject to the following conditions: 1. Sanitary sewer and water service must b driveuvaysand-avaid installed in a way that does not affect the the steep slopes in the front yard of the property or the trees on those slopes. Sanitary sewer service must 6e installed under the existing and proposed driveways. Since Saint Paul Regional Water Services will not permif this routing for water se�vice, it must be installed using drrectional boring. 2. Existing trees and other vegetation must be protected during construction. New trees and shrubs must be planted as shown on the landscape plan dated 3/4/05 to replace vegetation that wiil be removed for construction and screen the new house from adjacent properties. 3. Site grading and construction must be done in accord with the Minnesota Urban Smali Sites Best Management Practices Manual. Silt fence must be installed as shown on the approved site pfan and grades left idle for more than 1 week must stabilized. ATTACHMENTS 1... Letter from the applicants designer 3... Site pian and buiiding elevations 9... Photos of the site 15 . . Location maps • �Z C�5 5�r� Chronology for 816 Winthrop Lot split � 3/1/04 3/2/04 3/22/04 3125iO4 4/2/04 Joan NeVson submitted an application for a lof split to PED. PED sent not�cation of the application to DisVict 1 LIEP sent an email to PED advising that lot split did not meet conditions for slopes and recommended that the lot split be denied. PED sent a letter to Joan Nelson denNng fihe fot sptit and infiorming her ofi the process fior appealing the deniai. No appeal of the denial was fiied. Instead, Joan Nelson sent a letter to PED asking tf�em to "extend the Citys deadline for approving my lot split application " 4/5/04 DisVict 1 sent an email to PED stating that the District 1 Hearing Committee had met recently and "approves the lot split, however recommends that the decision be heid for rivo weeks so neighbors can discuss purchasing the lot from the owner. In addition, any decision should strictly folfow the Highwood Plan without variances.... We feel that the 2n lot would require many variances in order to be built on ° 4/5/04 PED sent an email to District 1 and others notifying them that the lot split had been denied 7/8/04 LIEP sent an email to PED saying that after reviewing River Corridor regulations on slopes again, LIEP staff determined that "it would be possible to build a reasonable size house on the proposed IoY' but there were limits on "where a new house could be located and how big it could be:' LIEP also said that the slopes in the front yard were too steep to build a driveway on but a driveway could be built for a new house that did not impact steep slopes if it came in off of the neighbor's driveway so that it avoided the front yard. 7/30/04 • 9/3/04 9l13l04 9/27/04 District 1 toid PED staff that they supported the iot split if no variance were required. PED sent a letter to Joan Nelson approving the lot split subject to conditions including one that an easement be recorded to permit the new Iot to use the existing driveway on the adjacent lot so that the steep siopes in the front yard could be left undisturbed. Appeal period expired PED staff taiked to District 1 about the lot split. Site plan review 1/11/05 Vinh Le showed staff a site plan for a new house. Staff informed him that it did not meet standards for slopes or front yard setback. The site plan was drawn on a new survey. The grades on this survey were slightly different than the grades shown on the survey that had been submitted with the lot split and showed more buildable area with siopes less than 18%. 2/22/05 2/?/05 � 4/14/05 4/20/05 4/28/05 5/6/05 5l16/05 6/15l05 Vinh Le submitted a revised site plan with a different house and made an appiication for site plan review to LIEP. District 1 met to discuss site plan and questioned whether it met standards for developing on slopes Zoning Committee held pubiic hearing on the site plan. Staff recommended approval of the site plan. Mater was laid over to 4/28/05 LIEP sent letter to Vinh Le extending the review period for another 60 days to 6/20/05 Zoning Committee voted 7-0 to recommend deniai of the site plan/ Pianning Commission voted unanimously to deny the site pian. Appeai was filed by the property owner. Public hearing scheduled at City Council Y 05-� Tom Dimond 2119 Skyway Drive Saint Paul, MN 55119 651-735-6667 Apri126, 2005 816 Winthrop Street South OS-068-378 Lot split At the April 17�' Zoning Committee meeting the developer tesrified that they appealed the decision. Once le�al notice of a staff decision has been oiven you must file an appeal within 10 days or the decision stands. There is no provision for an extension. Once te�al notice of their decision has been �iven staff is required by Code to tum over any challenge of their decision to the BZA. Public notice and a public hearin� are required. Sec.61.70I (a) Biuffline - A 40 feet setback is required. The Code clearly states that in any particular case slopes greater than 18% are included in the bluff: Code also says the particular shall control the general. Sec. 60_202.B. The Executive Order 79-19 establishing the CriticaI Area states; "BIuffline means a line delineating the top of a slope connectin� the points at which the slopes become less than 18 percent. More than one bluffline may be encountered proceeding landward from the water.". See attachment. Slopes The stafF report says they approved the lot split afier staff made the determination that Code allows them to average slopes. The same report on slopes says that you do not average slopes. In this report staff says you measure the steepness between 2' contour lines. In the last report it said you do not measure it over a 2' co�ow you measure it over a 50 feet distance. The oziginal survey and City GIS show the same 10 feet chan�e in elevation over a 40 feet distance. The reworked survey shows a 10 feet change of elevation over 50 feet of distance. See attachment. u • • �y ��J � The plans say that Alan A. Kretman 15144 is a duly Licensed Professional En� neer under the laws of the staxe of Minnesota. A check with State Licensing indicates otherwise. See attachment. State Stahrte says that landscape architects can not design structures and facilities as ordinazily included in the practice of engineering and architecture or preparation of surveys as ordinarily included in the practice of land surveying. See attachment. If the claim of bein� a Licensed Professional En�neer is false and he can not desi�n or survey how can the Commission sign off on the survey and plans? Rear yard setback - 25 feet Rear lot line - The lot line opposite the front lot line. Sec. 60.213.L. Side lot lines generally shall be at right angles to or radia] to street lines. Sec. 6J..i08. (h) Staff used the definition for pie shaped lots that taper to a point. This lot is not pie shaped. � Driveway The plans cleazly show that the west side of where the driveway is proposed goes from elevation 254 to elevation 264. That is a change of elevation of 10 feet not 6 feet. � 35 ��--�� - � �\ ��r'Etf�S?\ C D�FF;IITI�:1� Zt7C :'O]2C::�1ItC _�.:a5 8� [:>°Ct TR �iT?S^ �°_:1[.il�1Ut?S Sf7�:Z� �:?.':� i.E12?Oil: �r..-__:ni:ic,;, ee��,s o:r:�;:ri :e d�Eir�d: 1_ "flct" r:ea�s ti!� Crit�cel {lreas F,ct cE 1973, t�i�zn_ S�at. Secticas li6G_01 to 11oG_14 (Su�p. 197�t)_ �- 2. ��hCC°SSOT'� 1i52 G1�3('iS @ USE' or partfor. Oi c� �SE' OI' SttUC�LtY� SGSQi'GIIC�i.°_ t0 d[ii'1 s�r��ing ti;e princip US� Q2' Sti'ilC�(t!E' 6�1 �f:E'. Su'G:2 �Q� �c�1d� � CU�tOt:t3t'i ly 11 t�t°Y��O. - 3 "Futjacent" r��ans �aviJig a bo;.�n�ar-y t:�izicn p:�ysicallf tauc:�°s or a:jo;r.s_ �c. ��{�131'1Cu��;JY2�� C•oc2riS tfl° lt�T�ILc�ICTt 0` 1c�Ilt� c(7C7 SiT'UCiUt'�5 t`_tt?;�0:1 fCT' prod��ci.ion Oi �ar�� CT'C�S includi;,a �i_:� rOi. �iR1��C� �O tr�s��zb7z� ft'Ui� �t'��5� C�T�clft� �IOU�i?'}� ut1C CE�::�_$iiC fdYi;1 dil)i.ic�S 2.t7CI C1SE•S :1P.CCS$2T}' ar custn�arily incid�n�al t��re�o. �� ,� a_ E�dCi:t;B'L°Y E'.1°2R5 Z bOG�,'f Ot t73�eY coz�ne�t_d l�fli,ft �tt� Ili,��C' 2�i�Ci"G u_i' t�� C:c lIi S L:'�2t:!_ ,�-, . ' u Ei_ bd''�? f�22=1iiy Area t;E�cT1S dR d2'°d L�:1�'Lf?? Y'l:"" `= � C,, Otl 0}' Or! C;t�(:R°� 1 _ , :'.i'�;.'.� c i':^. t�C7_^.OY�Y] �� [1J1"i:P.'� u:�il S�CUY�C3 i 1 C' i.0}!i �Y°_ ; S C(' t.*'� !I}� _ . ' n �� (� T 1 ��_ f. �c�'.7�� Sl� l::�c.i�> l J�51r1� �f��S<Z27j C.��,]:C°R: LO �:':i1�C� JLII._'� U'�Li� �T� - C�R2:' C2.i'j0 fl:":�iG��ICi� i�C1�T`LY� Y::1CT'� l5�i�2� �YE' f:i F0:" �(l� �iIt'YU>°_ O f IO�CI? r[J Ol" Utl� Q: G1 R� CdY�O_ � - �i'. �p�I:iT?iCl�� G: a lir.e d�limating i,El°_ �07 Or d S�C7� CO:1Tt°Ci.1C ZR2 �O�JR:S di. t';(IlC(i �(;2 S70B2 b°CC:i°S �°�S �tt'n 1$ �i°t'C�R� II�"e ct iS C bluf, 1�r_ nay F�� e:�cc,in�ered pt ocee;t�ng 7�n�:rard rr th� ;•;<;.�r. - 9. "Buildir.g N�ig��'" r..�ar:s tn� v2rtic�l distance to be r=_asui-ec1 `re:� tF.� gra�� Oi� a builcEing 15n= t`.0 �R? t0� �O �R° LUY(i1Cc Qf � f�'L Y0.'lr �D t(:? G�_C�: � lin= o` e r�ansa; roo:, to a point on ti2e ro�f c;irectlf acove _;:= hicn=,� J -- Y:3 OI" � sh?d reo` �0 tfl� Ct�: FDi:t� ^utt d I'OCt;�:; �r �iner arcn �,`fNE � I'00`� �C �f12 Ii:221: C175i,21C° Oi 'tilC' fl1C,� _S ��7d;i1c 0:1 ?. Fil u n�('i Ct' h1r,7 fC0`_ 1�_ �� Clear C��7;?j�� r;�>P.S flt� T'C�'.i0�'�1 Gi 2[1 �;�i1t'2 SiZt;:i Oi �YC'ES di:� Sei:'t155_ n f.c v� � " ,_� c r - C�U$".Y C3e._1o,:-:_n� C.�<.it� t2 p�'l't^_itt Oi SItp�7:'1$)OR i'7l:1C[7 � f16uS17�, U:11[S l:ti0 C01�_:C� C_Ji'tiL!fltliC_j.i S':flt�� F�t �? I)2Z�dOlc: Q` CQ:��:_C Ct'it:_°G' or cedicateJ op�:, space_ �. �- COLiF1'..�:I� IC�dC:S ii72 t'iip,^,r,�r��2 �: �G:i�1.� CO�I:,Cl� E'i•`.3�ti?S.^.�:( j.�,iYSU?!�� j.0 ll:iill. Sid''.. �CCt. �i[?i._Q} �O 11oC_U �SU�E�. IZ7l � , -• ��.5 ` V I -,: ="s ;'� :. r _ � .-�!. : -- - .'•� c . A '' •, �Q._. ,\, _ =. � .' :.,%�_ , .�.r �i `_: 1" - � �°} G ' � _. a.� � � !g� v n. �i _ , � �C�/ i'' ' . ,. �� ' V'��-+�� ''��'`' ^'_ \� � t ` „ a - � �` � � 1 'c< � � �\ , _ , _ ' � �i � . - . q-_��'�c,=, ._ ` .��` �� ' ` S<::6 I"� c�._5 , .:i �- �- i,- = :"�c_��- O _�� _ / �-ro:'�=�� `�v�. ' C �" ' _ +�OW JZ ��5 �-- •,\ _� �- - J � / � n_ Y �C� .�' 4 ' C: c+..:_—� r. .1 __, ' .�� s.M�� : � i/ . � _ ��\ �� 5 / ,r-\. f `\ - �� - � � ' . . _/ 6' - � ��b_ _ i --�_ \ � �- i 6 6i� �i � . . i � �--� � �I � ��-��' = O , �� -- \�yO� --�� .-�t � y,`�'1,��s-- , � ` � -».��`_.�� — /�� :'� �,\`,... ��ti-i _ - � � � � ,��i ; , : S \ � --� � � � �- _ l � o� h � / ( a ,�o`.� ,. �� ,� �,>r`,sa �-�,•�.- > �-J, `�` / �� o ��'�x� ,- _,� �\ �` � �� ,n!/,� � } �,�\..r,1 _ � 1 �.,�/ / q 'h� �.=/ � �� \ ��`� ,f-.�\� i�� ^ ��_ .i/ / � �� \ i: `` `, � -�� r / ' � � . O ^?�� - �>\��, i I � )�� -\ - "t-"�' = \ ' � i ��>^ ` ° `' s� + 6 i\�+� ( y �I - �(� . 9� �..��0`� X' '\ \ �� ` �� /` ��-.` V` � +/�! , LL � '/ 'fCJ . , N �\\ 1.�_. e�.. \ �-- �_�`-�•:... �'.,�� "'.`-.- ._ ,' 1 _ _� . '.h',� / 'o� \. � �\'� ,:�'e . �. C � � \�. �,, , �: i �.: �� • � �� _ .� � �L�:'`::��`��i� -.� � _ � : 0' ' = '. ' t � Q \'1 �- !`= ` _, _— ;., . _. T .. --r� =c�� '" \, �J" �r:. } M .,., � � ' `�1 _ .! i � . � -�� _��; � Nd1d � \b. �F- � . Q s � ' C-_,', . .. � > - � , C' � . � � = 0. �� '� ^' _ ��c :��cv /�y ` � � ��_'� � �,,� �� _�_:. 1 ; : i � �i � '°; i I � s -g,,_--= �5- _ _.� - ° :�-\ .of� `A� -33�,` .��k,"�.,1: �li' \v - �\:_\ _. '' "�� ^_ `)C�,.i�\:�:C.i`9 � � __ � ?�\�,:� T CO - _.. \ , � / / � '' _ � , �/ \ � � : � \� �"�\ � � . ' \ \\ �� ! ' � \"- '—. � �, �� _ n � ` � � • \ `�.� ': >� � •�_`'l — ; � _ �' .q/ � -_ ' — \ �_9p �.�\ �.�:� , � �� ,, �-: �� , _ 1 . , ,' �, �* ., � ° , .-'� '•. �-... � `�.'.\ � � �\ `�� _ -.: / �� ' ' �. � �,�� . �\ �� -,a' — '�� ,�, = - � � � ' � V � ` . . , �_ � -- 'k:a " - _ ` _ - l - ` "�; _'^._ - „ (1 '\� \`,� -_ ` =a �� . �- --- _ '� -- ,�_�__ �\ �� _ ,%� -Z�__ >- --��- - � -\`\ ��\�\� .� ' ;,;��_\ S \\ , � \\, j' �,� r � � 1 i/�. �.` � ' \ . � ° �,`;,��;\�, � � .� �� \�� , .; '=�' :r� . �, � ;� 5:,; � :.,�� ,�—iJ � � � _� O. � , �. ' �i _` '�^ \ \ .a, o � ., I � ��'��``` � - � \ ` n �� `� :o�\ �� ,`� �"�: V '� �, �\_�._��`� ' ' �.\- � �' � `,i\ ' \ . •,-�._ - \�� m � \F C a � �. • `-'!� ` �'� � �'.�. '\\.,; b�\�� . � o�' � � ��\ �1 � .� \ �.� �� - r: ' e•q.�:;\�\� \ ! C, ` �_' -� ��\ � \ o.�'`\� , � � ' v * ' , ,j '} ��:� ��\ �. 3 � � � �- ��^ '^4�\ \ � 7 �(., �'� ` �.:, G �� - � \ � .1�`�a��'\`�-� .- � ;� � �f. O\ .. \ . ' �� a ' �� ' % '�- N � �� ° . / 1 , 9s . � ;" / � c _ . o -.-��. ., � : � � _ __ <_^�.,'. -:. f. �/ ' . �h � � - X Gn �' : � �\ /� " ` � '' '_ �' �' � �'.c. � � � � � ' ' ' % � : _ _' ' �`. ' '�� .^-; '� _ .�_ � _ �< , ! / '� i/-�a .�� J. `-!. •=r . �`�' r.�'\ / n!�`',-�'_--��..�.-� .! '� �.q.�� . I '/_ �. ".i � ' i .� � , j� \��' - `�. �' �, ..��' .\';"_` � � � � ' 4/ - `,, , , � o `` (./ ' .- .�,.\ ��, _ -. �, . 4� � � \' p f . j _ � . : ,�`'Q'� � `.'- � . i \ �,^> � =' :;\��'�,= , . � � . ''� � � ' / ` l' /^ �7 4^! "� �; - ' � �� ' -, , v .,.' ' \`' -. 'l ` \�` �\ ` . �.lC . / � ;� _ i a ,�fi _ � � � i;rj '��'. ' \�' � � - - � ':\ ��. '. ,.�..�� .�.� � _ S - /..., .. �, . �= ., .�`, �v`'. . .��,.;�.' � � ,\ �. , � i � ' . =c � \ `P� ,/ � '~�.�' �.�.�� p fl - �'`\\� � \�`� ; ;-��.�'\� . \ \� �`. .��:�.�::. _ _� p O _O. _ r� ' �� 'v t �5. _\ \• � �' ^�' ..�� :=�YJ'ir � . . � � ` ';\ '�£},�� {�?.. pu .\ _ ` ,�{✓. \ �.. �^_� _ 1-_ ^"sl" � � �l - �� _ / . . � �,^.in�. / _ i .t' �. . � � e.- \\�� ,^ .Q� i�1. —_i - � � ` \ �/ \ � / /J� ) � H �� . i �_ !�� /J -. . - 'n � a�.� �' ��.\ �'�\ . \V \ � � �A. / _ �`� - r��,I ..� �� 1� ' i" ..� .,: �'��`. \` i _ _ ! ' ^ � � . \ l ... � . . �' i � ` ' � " \ \ \'� � �� .�� . . � : . _ __ ��.� �� ^� �� \ �_V J/ �:�__ �cn ri \ � '° �-a` y 9 �p�p� �� OS Z£.a _ \ \�\ °•;.�\`�`�, \.�.c-.i/, \ ' - \ �� \ � . r � ° r '1 ;' _ ��s \ ,`c c� _, '` �� r�� ti �4, i / � � ` `, �% � �' �� f1 � a \\�.�.\\v\,\ .\ \G it .• r`�� wv r �� I � �� ,.,,� �� ,�:�� N,� " ��, _ _ - _ ._ � . ti,,;; ��\ ` , s � � `�,�. \ `� `��- \ ,� __ _ .� -_ „ . ., < < 3 � � 1-: ~ J :` � i � \\� t. � ` � , .e �;\ \ � � _ -'g` . � \� �(}��OT.� / � � / � , \ d . � ��\\\ ��" \�`� ��5�'� � � C .$1�`�, � ' / � e � /�� s � �- ��'\ ` o ` \'..� \`. � \`_ .� � � ^= . ' o / ` 5 ., � ' �� \ �}� � �:; � �:. 41., � .�^ -:�� '•.e� 'n - -' b ��\��'.,- _,p!'�._\� `G ar � �-o� _ .:\\ ' " o �J _ ' Q�, � �\c: `bxi'-t (�;_: : - Y�:: :: .�_ . - `� :'� ._'_' . � � �_ ` �;1_ "�'�..�_ �:��`. ,c+\'\.c� R�k'ss'�� C- �' �Qp � ';. � ., � . . �,�: �`;; F�>;' :_- .=-... :.-:� - ' -- f k'[:� �'��' � .. .. _ .. , _ ." _ - � , �� ------- ,��, - - �:::'� . � -,� _ ; :,_. i :,.-�,::. _a . M �16� J � .: ' ;. / ]e� p.l...�'' � , t0 �\ ��:�.� ��. •" l �b � S.� b' i;��'_� :.�:' _ � i — �+lf � t Y'� . � � �•_� � � _ , ) _ �,_ _ . '.'�:�'"1"�.i. � _� `� � f, n�`.�; � ` ` -��o ��'✓ �� _ � � JI t �' �'c�� _ � ��, r»,� • ��$'� �.. -� � c . � s.� / ,- r �... .� / / a.. �- �\ �\'- � - �'y�7i?•�� i : � sW . �� =-�� i . .. �5 �� '�' (/ � ' /!� �-? 4 h�'�� : _i, jd / -/� i �/ ' \ � � \� _ � � S �� roe= - a� _ `-�� >' i i ..-.:^ e �� .a' J � �� _ � �� n' - \ r �s:ag. �; _• - ,_ — " �-, ,� - ;= , , � __ `�� - <c:a�'�1'.� 1'. . -�� _ �� _--i — o os �� :c..�: � � ='�?�, , s \� �` ��:� �.._ ° 60` �-:_'— °:" , ,'�.' ; e - ' ^ � I>.,. y .,, ' _ - .' � � � _� os ° 4 �.�� • � � � - o C _ : �`ij._.: �:i:`,!�; ' ^'I � - N�� ' , " C ! -- .�:-:,. �. �'.'i �.. �e? , _ , . ' C�Oy c � � _ �.�_t.Q\ - \. �L.' "vr-cd-c�6> 1 , ' '' f `�� y �„'i'_: ' i � C� �OQS C� ''O�Gc � r I c�� . ,A\��,�`,,.� o ."� - \;s? '�_ _-" c6�_� ��n ' I Q�C'I- .I i ��-� I � I � , ' �"-; '- -:\-:;:'��. , LL W.� ' . I I ' - � .i;• i -��''=. ".;�,.- � �\��`a�� ',�\- z^�..1R�.�.iF_`;. ��. � � .. . � � � � �I� �w . '� l � .: r �� - � _ ,. a " �<�'' ��r t� '� „� � % i ^`"_"�_!., ». z' : r_� - o �. � �� '� �. .,� '' �\ � �l:'„��, \ _. �!' , � , , � ; , � I .-� �- =�, _�o, ) �, � N;� ��:�,��_��_ . �._.. � C�5-�!'� � ` - - -� ___... .°"�°£ � �, � ---�� / \ '-.. ... � ' �� \; ... '� ��n�nd ron � \ � \�, F.LS �9�"0� � : cur,c Iron. nc c�� .. . :... / i: �2 �:. Norh � �, " � ' � \� � 0.2n �; W=sc cf \ y l'.OTP Correr pos. _ r �'o'• \ — ` -� \ � -. `' ?�• z � � \ `'m ,O 7 `O \ .Ls�2.� ._... .... .'` � '�Q Lr l R=594.6fi � - �,� ry � round , �ry Four4 lror, � �>QS`Oi'S4" \ � ' ' `� rto ca " � \ _ -` lron, ; - 'i � P C.B. S49 04'12'W �� no c i p , � ry R \ D. t?tST. 17.4Q • �� r f ,%- , , ry � 6C p � . : =�` -. �; ; �; l, , } �: ry \ \ �\�� 4.�P - .::. �� JCIS�lNG '� (', / �'�A '�` � }, '� � � �. ' � �j,C� 9UfC.�tN. --,t , � '' ,'� i�m 3 � � � _ -� .:P �� ,,,; ,,�:- : , i , � c,�Q: • � ' , . � ' r" " `' ' � \ � � �� _;. N � � ';;;;i;•„f� _`_�_ . � � .i • a �j ' �•. .;/: . '.` 't--, � � " �u ! r "' / , �. .. . _A, � , �2gfi ` \ . , /4� '_ _ " �y � „' . �MyI�1 6e^ �� c1 ' i 9_ T�p`. � a ,a . ..� a � � � . , �"i> ' 9 , s \ .- \ N �; 'b, h� 1 ; .-�. �'+ , '� �13.fi7 \ ' \ cr��s v�}NF,'rYrti'� /i / ! ': '; '� ' y 'S ' 1 �'. �`. �`'_"�84 T38.22 � r ' i" ^- i ! � — '�'' �H ' � . . . , , , . , \, ,�p \ \ e3, ,� . '" : '� ` ' l`' . ------- �a5 . j s�,% ;� - .. ., "' '. � _ TOQ'61'`N '` 1 ,' 9 ' BsN".__.� ?4�.83• t _'_'_"_"".�' "" x" z75 tST. 13.67 �`' _� , , , ��' ' " --- --- , I ' I , ;, _----- f _°--- ` -,-_ �_ _- �—i--z;a , .,. ., J + ,�; �� '•;• ' ''----- ' I � _' , i: ��---- sr ,a _ J ` - , -� "'� Or_'__Z: / ' `` i� ��.`_� ' �<4�YT -- f ♦ � �� 4 �, �______ ______ �� g _____ ____< I I '-t ' � � �_ � ":.. :: � :i�`�� i r � ` __ _ � ----- �. {J -�',�----_____ ----- , _- _� , � --'= --i i ,� � / �'; , ��`--------��ee.,�_ -- , � � <' ' i` �_� � � . jt : � I ; t` ' � T '� ; � _..- � �' `� - ------'---- 1 . , ,-' , „ " '. -� � ;� � ,4;.;`�a� � �i ,RI � --- �, �'----------�5e �R. ' ` � �J �'� ' � � � __- _, , � _,;; , pR �, _ � �,, �` ;� ^' , " �` ry= o �i •, , �� ' ` v� � e' ti � � 3 - oy2_" \ : _ " ' " � _ _ ' _" ��. "' _!� r ' \ I � ? i� l �o�^d iron. � �„�..2d �,- r ; [ / � I � C% /� f10 CJp. _ 6 i��T�.: i� v � l � �.7 '�Ei T f / / ( �/'� .L ( �SOU=it?QSi .... . -. �=; ` \ I ' l � ` � C ,`� � \ � ,N \ \ � �S18 � Q -, � , ' 34_ZS \ �y'. _,' / / �- � � „ � ' � O \r�� /�� .. � i � i... w n � .� � iii�i�-_i�� /nF�� i LC tp ._... _. \ y� i/ e.i�.. � � � � •... i r _T � � - \ (% ._,. . ^ � .... . , t� Q _ \ \ � '^^') ' z � , y^ � � � �� . � � � m , M�T WEST�RLY � \ i CQP.N�R GF 9LQCK 8 � / _ . � ' \ � \ . � - � 1vfOST '�AFt��RLY \ CGRN=R 0� _OT c ✓� ��rG �L�,T ,�—r �-5�� _ °` a _n.,�_ _� i � =2�5- 1��53 ?25�� 125�9 12561 ?2�63 1%56� �%568 l �jil =2572 �2�79 _i528 «0�3 1288� - ? V U G '2�83 -=�`yG _ " �; ,": � �' __' _.� 1__�n ��;y 13��3 1?�i_ iJJ__ 1354� i3563 ±3585 1402_ 14094 ?4185 15597 14_776 15137 �5141 � 2 g ��tiGr!.`�iC•i_ C-�^�_^_C� C' S:�j e � �os �ad �=? C,�.2'" S v Zl jn] i i i e Pekarek Miiler Pu�man Dust�ude King Lampman Uauc'.K 'J'T3C �cr Wood A�d:T.iS Bald��in N°ZSOIl 0`�.de .=:?:.^'.2='SOR �� _�E�_ V v �� L. .\l.� *�* °'? i" :/ �L�r� ��:__Sr2r_S°;, Jo_�r�son ��=Y�'P= �"IJv `G Pashek_ IK2yer Bauer Pitz Thorson Owen Uban Watson Lueth Jones Kerr, FFS� wyss Kr��man �. ��T_? ROg�"_' 'E�ET =ic1"G1 G ?`��T 1K �aie K2_'?P_2L�? Or1yn Narc James St�ven G3ry Rcber� �'�r�y Charies Dennis ::erb �lmer Dati id Dd'Jid rerman � O _�' � :�,? r ' 1 ti � _ � F PEG�STRTTIpN �� inR�eramryw�w, P�i�.SRAfiGaOm a �upM xa5 IXCpdrt Ov � - myQrep ' �`�� : � a.,, �� > �� .a e�or�s�w,aic^s^��. ��a�r me u�.s or m� Rt ,��o,M.,�v �: J < q !� F rcRE1maV F_ �5:dt St � M� TY D� C S� L PREPA('�ED BY' 2 2s� _ �a� 5 ^. s - - :� � 3 = �f� �� - p — e -c P_l an � �= _5"�� Mart-n G2o��rey http:ilwww. ae:sla�i d.s:ate.mn.us,2, aI.icNum.bct 3S l J � J- T S D D v1 Rob�rt R G M P T. � J L !�j D Tv�; _ liam n n A C_ _?rC1SCC�.'�'.P yandsca�� yandscape iandscape Ld7?�SCd,.'�E Landscape Landscap° Landscape Landscape Landscape LdndsCape Landscaoe Landscao2 L3I1'.�SCc�c Landscape Landscap� Ld :G Landscaoe �andsca�� Lar_.�'.sc��° Landscaoe �c.riCSi�cO� _��'�6C _ - LCi�_Ct�.�c'.�)^ � I�1�LlJl,�QI.� J.J'V i�U✓L....'�+v? Landscac�� LanCsca�2 Lan�:scap2 ?�di1CiSCai'✓z �andscap2 Landscape Landscape Landsc�pe Lands cape Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape - ry v � � - ��_..C�l --=c"-��c� 1-"-1"C�? �2Ci r=-C�liLCC: �TCf11L2C: Architec� ALCh1�2Ci nrchi�ect P_Y'Cr1�ECi Archit2ct Archi�ec Arcn�teci Architect ArCi'11 �?CT AY'Ch1L2CL FrChi�eCi LrC'P1 Frchitect %=:rCI?iL�C� F:LC�'1 P_rch_t2c: L __ ^ ��: - . - � � —_�i�-Cc.�. L ' } r - __` l. ! `_.L.. _ _ _ � Il _ 1� � � ArCh?t?ci �=:rCr11l.?�; �. �rc--� t�c rrcnit2ci Architect Architec� A?'Ch 1'C2CI AY'Ch1t2Ct Architec� P_rchitect P_rchiteci ATC�'11t2CL P_rchitect Frchitec� �rc�i�2c; T_�"CR=L2C°. Asc^�itec; 4I26i'0� vinnescta Sta�;tes 2GC� 326.02 r a�e ^ cf - �5 �� sha11 be constru2ci to permit a prof2ssional g2esci2nt-st �o engage in the prac�ice o•` orofessional 2ngi�eering, � architecture, landscape architecture, or land surveying or Lo use the ti�le "certifi2d interior design" as those terms are deiined in this section_ Nothing in this subdivision sha11 be construed to regulate persons who take soil samples for the purpose of providing recommendations on crcp production. Subd. 4. Practice means the application o and appiied sciences an angles, elevations and air, on the suriace oi bodies of water for the of land surveying. Land surveying f the principles of mathematics, physical d law to measuring and locating �ir_es, na�ural or art?ficial features in the the earth, underground and on the beds o� purpose of_ (i) monumenting property boundaries; (2) planning, aesigning, and p�a�tir_g of �and ar,d snbdivisions -ncl�ding the topography, aiig�unent and grades o= s�reeLS; arc l3i �=2�c-'-i7C�,' cI?C]' D°'_'D2'U�'u±'_:1C� iuc',JS� ��2C':'�"Q F �LS �r'-C� . pZ'GD�i �y G�ESCZ'1pL'-0P_5 _ ??ny persor_ who offe�s to perform, �olds eut as beir_a a�le �c perfcrn�, or who do2s perrorm land sur�r�ying �or others shall be practicing land sur�eying_ Nething contained in �he prOV1S o� sections 325_02 `c "._5, sha'_1 prohibit a licensed proLessional engin2er, architect, landscape archi�.ect, or professional geoscientis� rrom cloing any work included in the practice of engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, and professional geoscience, if the work does not involve �he establishment or reestablishsnent of property corners or property lines. Subd. 4a. Practice of landscape architecture. Any �erson sha11 be deemed to be practicing landscape architecture, within the meaning of sections 326.02 to 326.15, who hoids out as being able to perfcrm or who does perform any professional service in connection with the development of land areas where • �n2 daminant purpose of the se�vice is �he preservation, enhancemen� or determ�natior, oT proper iand uses, n�turai iar.d nttp:iiwwtiv_r�visor.' eg.state.mn.uslbin/�etpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CN �P_SEC�yea.=currentc:section=32... 4i351C� LF U tilinneso� Sars±es 2004, 32b.C2 � 5c11��P s �t�- -2�uL1.LT?S� g_cund COVE1"' d:1Ci pid?7�1?1C�,, I1dLllT'n�=S��C c7?Ci c2S=i�PL_C � �,.25, ��?2 S°C tinqs � dDp?"OdC�cS C?" °_^_vi-pT'�"°-1� TO"' S�?"tiC�ii'_"25 otner improvements, and the consideration ar.d C°L2_''I1iP_�L1CP c_ inherent problems oi the land relating �o erosior., wear and �ear, bligh� and hazards_ Th�s pract?ce shall inc�ude the locat_on and arrangement of �angible objects and fea�ures 1. C� den�al dIl� necessary "CO L�'12 DllT'T�OS25 OUL� 7.P_° but S113 l np� include the design of structures or iacilit-es with separate and se�f-con�ained purposes as ordin�rily included in the p ra c� ic2 or enqineering or architecture or the preparation of boundary surveys or final land plats, as o�dina�ily include in �ne ,^_,rac�ice oi l�nd surveying_ No*hing contained in sections 326.C2 to �26 _=_ conc�rning landscape arc^.i�_ects shall be construed: (1) to apply to a professional engineer duly registered under tne l�ws of �his sta�e; (2) to appiy �o Gn arc'�i:�c� reais�ered under �'?e laws o= Y '�15 S�dL°; �__ �;�) to apply to a land snrveyo� r2gis�ered under th2 laws cf ''�; s sta�e, �:.� (4) �o prevent a=egistered arcnitect or professional engine2r �rom do�ng landscape pia�?nina and uesigning; (5) to exclude nursery opera�ors or other small business people from the preparation of ian�scape plans app�op:iate tc the normal operation of their business; (6) to authorize a landscape architect Lo engac�e in the practice of architecture, engineering, land surveying, or geoscience. No person sha�l use the designation landscape architect or any title or device indicating or repr2sen�ina that the p�rson is a landscape architect or is practicing landscape archi L2Cti1?"° unless the persor. is registered under the provisions of sections .6.02 �0 325_'_5_ Subd_ 4b. Cert.i�ied interior desic�?er. (a) Fo- tne h�tp:!/www.revisorl e�.state.mn.us,�ini�e�ub.php?pubtype=STAT_C�'� �&sec±ion=32.-. 4I2S/OS t( � �'J�l� �-I �- �-;�S sr�tr-r- r�eya.�� Slopes ; fi- Tne Zonina Code says "no residentia( devetopment shall be permitted on slopes gr=ater than eight� (18} percent' in the River Corridor Overiay Zoning District. (Section 68.402.b.3) Sta`f said that the house and driveway avoid=d 18 percent sfopes 6ut peopie speaking in opposition to the site pian disagr2ed. One source of disagreement was the method used to determine where there are 18 percent slopes on a site. we Ioo[c at the areas where the � �� ww ��nes vn �ne araamq pian is steeoer than � a/o t hese areas are shown on the grading ; piart submitfed by the appiicant. The pfan shows tF�at the existing stope in the area of the proposed house, measured this way, are less than '18%. One person who spoke in opposition said that the areas of steep slopes should include everywhere where that average grade over 50' is steeper than 18% even it that inciudes areas where the change in grade betweeen 2' contour !ines is Iess than 18°/a. Using this method would include some of tne area where the house is proposed to go. Another source of disagreement was the grades for the driveway. Tha exisiing grade where ihe n2w driveway wouid en'ter the site goes up 6 feet in approximate(y 30 ieet_ - An issue that has come up on other projects in the River Corridor is how large does a siope need to be before it is count2d. !f any slope is included, no mater how small, any smali dip or hump m fhe land coufd noi be touched and many properties in the river corridor would be unbuildable. Stafi has wres'tied with this issue on previcus projects and does not think that tnis was the intent of the steep siope resfrictions. So staif has aflowed disturbances such as driveways on minor slopes where tne 18% slopes hav= a change of grade Iess than 9 fzet. The driveway proposed here would be pe;mitied underthat standard. - People opposed !o the project seid tna't there is nothing in 2he regulations about minimum slepe� the existing grade for t5e driveway must be count2d and i't does not meet the sfope sfandards. - Staff ine` as a group to discuss the method for measuring slopes for the house and determin d hat the code allows construction of a house where the averaqe sfope of the buildina pad is less than � 18%, since ihis is more consistent with the language for lot spfits that says "no lot shall be created � where the building pad for a principle structure has an existing slops steeper than 18%." (Section 69.406a_5} � -i There are existing slopes steeper than i S% in some areas near the north property line where the new driveway woufd tre located. The existing grade where the new driveway would enter the site goes up 6 feet in approximateiy 30 feet. There are not any altemative locations for the driveway where the stope is fess steep. When projects in the River Corridor have been reviewed in the past, questions have come �p about how to apply the rules for developing on steep slopes. One of fhese questions is how large does a slope need to be before it is counted. if any slope is included, no mater how smal! (such as a chan e of rade of 2 feet in 1 Q feet , rrtany properties in the river corridor woufd be unbuildable. Statf has wrestled wifh this issue on previous projects and does not think that this was the i�tent of the steep slope restrictions. So stafF has allowed disturbances such as driveways on minar slopes where the change in grade is (ess than 18% measured over a horizontai • disiance of 50 foot (9 feet or Iess in 50 feet. ) The driveway proposed here wou(d be permitted under that standard. �Z 1 (� . � I � � k i I � i �� . i / ' � N fV / � / � . ! . . \ � N , ' / � i , � , . � i i� / / i . 1 . \ � �/ � / � ' � � " • � \ � / � i i � � � ♦ � � t � � . �, , \ i� � / ,, , , �` J . I p � , \'\ // ' � 'f 'ifi, ' / \ � ' • Bw .. = ^ � - ry �ry� L3Z \ � ; i \ ) � � � \ � , � , i ' � � � � �, � � ,. , _� � , , , , . ;; , . � ; � �., � :,� ��;� ¢ -�_ _ � � :; � ;; � �= � �, ` � _ -_- � � �� - - . � ,.i� - � ; =:� I 'I�_ � - � , , ' i� ! , I ° -. o I. � .. � � . - � V� G /� - . �I,, � - / -- - _1 � � . , . '. �.,' . . � '. �, `. � . C A 1 1 ' '. � tD " � , . _ . .�. �. j ' ... .. � 6 p� q y� � _ ,« : & ' _ _ " _ L _ ` ] I ' � j;0 . . `..�_ ``l\ ...1 i'_ , n+''y� �� W� ,,� o -" �.. - .._ / " - •, � y 0 � / �� ti \ I 1 � 1 I � � .,,` "� � �—� I N O h �� o � 1 ' • � /� n: i �� veati� _o �__ <� � ° G�� " I b�.,. I �b - `�?_ i �°__-_.�.�`+'� �sz''i�z'«= \ � \ \\ I .\ ; �� `� � ,, � � , � L // ' , - _ I � � ��°�\�° y // Z �� \� � i;; ,` I o ,..� 4� k E� ., v � VQ /�, c' �U , Ch �' c' O ` ,9 O C � � �� f� . `' t-E�aO / „:,<'' `'� / 0 � � r :' / � ,s� . W' /� .o � ' M 15B� _ . N 1 , N � ' 1 � � � \ �� / � � � , �5 ._` '� 2 � � _ y ' � _ � �9� �' - ` `` y �/ . .� i 1 '/ I _ �� , ., i / � l' \ � ` / �, � �_ P N .- \, C �j� Y, �� u _ ` S. � \\ � I � \ !\ l� \ \ \` �.. \ & S � � � � .� a S' � � ` b V }t ` +�^ ry �� 1 VO Vt � p 1 :S � � K \ � � � � 1 05 �Q� Tom Dimond 2119 Skyway Drive Saint Paul, MN 55119 651-735-6667 Apri124, 2005 816 Winthrop Street South OS-068-378 My testimony at the April 17, 2005 Zonin� Committee meeting and my letter with attachments dated April 12, 2005 point out the many areas of non conformity with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Approval of a lot split after it had been denied. Approval by staff to grade 18% slopes. Approval by staff to build on 18% slopes. Approval by stxff to build within 10 feet of rear property line. Appravai by staff of development that does not fit topography. Approval by staff of rehabilitation slopes greater than 18"/0. Approval by staff af development within 40 feet of the bluffline. There are fow questions. Are any variances needed? If the developer applies for variances should they be approved? Can staf'f approve a lot split when tegal notice of denial has been filed? Can staff approve an appeal when the legai notice and Code require appeals be handled by the BZA? Webster's Dictionary -"interpret - to explain the meaning of'. Code does not allow staff to change the Code or approve variances. Are variances needed for grading 18% slopes? The City witt continue to prohibit residential development on slopes thax exceed 18%. Conap. Plan 4.7.4 Development in the River Corridor means the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land including �ading. Sec.60.Z0�.d No residential development shall be pemutted on slopes �eater than 18%. Sec.68.�0�. b.3 Staffposition is they can approve gradin� 18% slopes for the retainin� walls, driveway and house site. It is also staffs position, that steep slope restrictions were not intended to prevent development on 18% slopes. Staff does not have the authority to make up their � • • 'l � 05 -5��, � own provisions if they do not like the Code. They offer no record to sfiow tha# when the City Council adopted both the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Pian they did not intend, no development on 18% slopes. The Code is clear - no development on 18% slopes. Also the grade on the west side of the driveway rises from 254 to 264 in 50 feet or 20% slope. If yoa want to grade 18% slopes for a driveway, retaining wall or buiiding you must appiy for variances. The site plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Are variances needed to develop less than 40 feet from the bluffline? Bluff development shall take place at least 40 feet landward of all blufrlines. Sec. 68.402(b)(=t) and Sec. 69.548(h) In any particular case, the bluffline shall mean a line drawn along the top of the bluff such that the slope below the line is steeper than 18% and the slope above is 18% or less. Sec. 60.202. B. Staff position is that the bluffline does not cross roads and must be on the same parcel as on the map. There are no such provisions in the Code. Construction of language states that, the particular shali control the general. The particular says that the bluffline is at the top of the 18% slopes. The grading, driveway, retaining walls and house each need variances from the 40 feet setback. • Does the creation of rehabilitation slopes greater than 18% require a variance? No rehabilitation slopes �eater than 18%. Sec. 68.402 (c)(7) There are rehabilitation slopes greater than 18% above the retainang wails, along the drive and behind the house The rehabilitation slopes greater than 18% need a variance. There are 180' of walls now. Adding walls and additional height is in conflict with the requirement that development 5t eaisting topography. Sec. 68.402 (c)(6) Does a 10 feet rear yard setback require a variance? Rear yard line - The lot line opposite the front lot line. Sec. 60.213.L. Side lot lines generally shall be at ri�ht angles to or radial to sueet lines. Sec. 69.508. (h) Staff position is that this lot tapers to a point so the reaz yazd setback should be measured from an imaginary 10 feet line. A 15 feet variance is needed. The first sentence in the definition aQplies to this lot because the lot does not taper to a point The lat line opposite the front lot line and behind the house is the rear lot line. The lot line behind the house is not at a right • angle to or radial to the street lines. �l � "( d5-�q� � Is the lot split legal' The lot split was denied March 25,2004 because the building pad area exceeded 18% slopes. Apri125, 2004 the time for appeal expired. The developer testified at the April 14, 2005 Zoning Committee meeting that the decision was appealed and the Iot split was approved. StafF denied the split because of steep slopes for the driveway and the building pad. The drive locarion changed but is still not in conformance. The building pad did not chanje but staff approved the buildin� site they had denied. The developer testified the decision was appealed. Staff is required to turn over appeals to the BZA. Sec.61.701(a) No notice to neighbors was provided. No hearing was held. The land or Code did not change. In fact even with averaging the building pad exceeds 18% slopes according to the survey on file with the lot split. Was the survey altered fo get approval? Staff said they told the developer that they shouid redo the survey because there are 18% slopes on the buildin� pad. The developer testified to the Zonin� Committee that they � redid the survey and the slopes chan�ed. Six copies of a certificate of survey are required with a lot sp&t On the originai survey there is a 10 feet elevation change (260-270) in 40 feet or 25% slopes. On the reworked survey t[►ere is the same elevation change in 50 feet or 20 percent slopes. We know that at least one of the surveys is wrong. Has there been an independent review to find out which survey is correct? Being off by 20% on a survey should be of great concern considering decisions are relying on their accuracy. On an 80 feet wide lot a 10 feet difference in distance is not a small matter. Also a 5% change of grade can change the regulations that appiy. Both surveys are certified as accurate but one is not $ow can the Planning Commission act when they do not know which if either of the surveys is correci? 1. The plan does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and Highwood Plan. 2. The plan does not conform to Yhe ordinances. 3. The pian does uot protect environmentally sensitive areas. 4. The plan does not protect neighboring properties from surface water drainage. Se c. 61. 4 02 (c) (1, 2, 3, 4) The State of Minnesota designated this a Critical Area specifically to protect the bluffs and other environmentatly sensitive areas. • d� ��-596 r � L_J • C� Tom Dimond 2119 Skyway Drive Saint Paul, l�'IN 55119 651-735-6667 April 12, 2005 816 Winthrop Street South The proposed development would require variances for: Driveway on slopes exceeding 18% House on slopes exceeding 18°/a Retaini�g walls on slopes exceeding 18% Rehabilitation slopes exceeding 18% Rear yard setback of 10 feet Development 40 feet from blufIline Development does not fit existing topography History: The staff report faiis to inform you that this lot split was "denied because it does not comply with the City of Saint Paul's subdivision rewlation". The lot split was denied March 25,2004. "The new lot you have proposed dces not meet City standazds for steep slopes. Section 67304 (7) Of the Zoning code states that no lot sha11 be created where the building pad area for the principal structure has an existing slope steeper than (18) percent or where a driveway steeper than (20) percent is required to reach the building site. The new lot you are proposing is too steep to meet these standards, which are designed to reduce the risk of erosion, damage to neighboring property, and over- developmern of hillsides. District 1 does not support any variances on this site. The denial was never appealed to the BZA who has sole authority to grant appeals. Sec. 61.701 (a) & (d) The public was denied a hearing because staff approved the appeal. Neighbors did not know the appeal was granted because they were never notified. The lot split was denied March 25, 2004. An appeal must be filed within 30 days that a decision has been served in person or by mail. No appeal to the Planning Commission was filed within the required 30 day limit. No public hearing was held and no public notification. Since the lot split was denied and legal served and since the appeal process provided for in CiTy Code has not been followed there is not a legal basis for this lot Timeline: March 25,2004 notification of denial Apri15, 2004 denial letter sent to District 1 Apri125,2004 appeal timeline eapires July 8, 2004 Tom Beech approves lot split �� • The Planning and Zoning Administrators do not have authority to make modifications in , the River Corridor or approve variances. Sec. 61201 (b) &(d) Variances required: 1 Grading 18% slopes 2 Driveway on 18% slopes 3 House on 18% slopes 4 Retaining walls on 18% slopes No development atlowed on slopes greater than 18% in the River Coiridor. Sec. 68.402 (b) (3) Developmeirt in the River Corridor includes grading. Sec. 60205.D. 5 Grading within 40' of bluffline 6 Driveway within 40' of bluffline 7 House wittnn 40' of bIuffline 8 Retaining walls within 40' of bluffiine Bluff development shall take place at least 40 feet landward of all bluf�lines Sec. 68.402(b) (4) The bluffline shall mean a line drawn along the top of the bluff such that the slope below the line is steeper than 18% and the slope above is 1 S% or less. Sec. 60.202. B. • 9 Rear yard setback variance 25feet rear yard setback required. Proposed setback is 10 feet at the rear corner and 18 feet ax the rear center. Sec. 66.231 Rear yazd line - The lot Iine opposite the front lot line. Sec. 60213.L. The rear yard is not pointed so you do not measure from the point. 10 Development does not fit e�cisting topography Development shall frt eatisting topography and vegetation with a minimum of clearing and grading. Extensive use of retaining walls (180') and grading because it does not fit existing topography. Sec. 68.402 (c) (6) 11 Rehabilitarion slopes steeper than 18% created No rehabilitation slopes steeper than 18%. Sec. 68.402 (c) ('� Staff claims they can approve ttns proposal because no variances are needed. Clearly that is not the case. Since no variances have been applied for the proposat shouid be denied. If the applicant chooses to reapply the new proposal should keep variances to a minimum- • �� 05-�9� • The proposed project is in the Mississippi River Crirical Area established by the Governor and I,egislature to protect and enhance the river conidor's natural resources. In particular it establishes as a priority protecting the bluffs and steep slopes. Executive Order 79-19 (130). The area is in the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area MNRRA wluch is a unit of the Nationat Pazk System. This area has special s'tatus as a Nationai Park and State Critical Area. Protectiug and enhancing the resources is a priority is this area• The proposal does not meet Federal, State and Crty minimum standards for proteciion and enhancement of the resourca The plan does not conform to the Zoning Code, Comprehensive Pian, and Highwood Plan. Since no variances have been applied for and the appeal is whether the staff can approve the current proposal I have focused my discussion on the need for variances and limited the discussion of why variances should not be granted. Thank you for your consideration. � �� `� b5-5�(� Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-46� Phone: (651) 297-2401; fax 296-0445 E-mail: sandy_fecht�dnr.staTe_mn.us May 5, 2005 City of St. Paul Planning Commission c% Tom Beach Office of LIEP 8 4th E Street, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55101-1024 RE: Site P1an Review - Single-Family Home (OS-068-378) 816 Winthrop, SE comer of Allston Mississippi River Critical Area/MNRRA Corridor Dear Commissioners: C3�3'� ". '�1 VJe would endorse the Zoning Committee's recommendation to deny the site plan review for a single- family home at 816 Winthrop. We would like to submit the following comments for consideration and submission to ail decision-making and hearing records. This lot is within the state Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor Distrlct, established in I9�6, and the federal Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (IvIlVRRA), established in 1988. This site is within the Urban Open Space District, River Comdor (RC) - 3. The purposes of designating the Mississippi R.iver and its Corridor as a state Critical Area include protecting and preserving a unique and valuable state and regional resource for the benefit of the citizens for the state, region, and nation; preventing and mitigating irreversible damage; preserving and enhancing its natural, aesthetic, cnitural, and historical value for public use; protecting and preserving the river as an essential element in the national, state and regional iransportation, sewer and water and recreational systems; and protecting and preserving the biological and ecological functions of the Corridor. In order to accomplish this site plan or any construction of a singl�family residence, multiple vatiances wn21 be needecL Va� for the constructian of the house, deck (as shown on the 3-i34-OS piau C3.Y), portions of the driveway, retaining walls, and grading is needed from the City's Zoning Code, Sec. 68.402 (b) (3) which requires for the entire River Corridor that no residential development shall be peimitted on slopes greater than eighteen (18) percent. Under the "development" definirion, this requirement applies to all proposed development activities includina siructures, decks, driveways, topograpluc alterations, vegetative clearing, refaining walls, and sewage treatrnent systems. According to the revised survey of e�sting conditions Cl.l, these pmposals will be placed on slopes greater than 18%, above elevation 260 ft. under the structure and above elevation 246 - 266 ft. in the other portion of the site_ On the original survey, slopes range from 24% - 30%. Tke submittec3 plaa C3.1 dces aot show as "shaded" all areas that have slopes geater than 18%, as cleazly shown by the eXisting contours. Variances for the house, deck, driveway, retaining walls, and grading aze also needed from Sec. 68.402 (b) (4) which requires that "bluff development shall take place at least forry (40) feet landwazd of all DNR Informauon: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-636'7 • T"I'Y: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Oppottunity Employer �� Printed on Recycled Paper Containin� a Minimum of 109c Post-Consumer Waste • � � Sa � 5G� Site P(an Review - 816 Winthrop (OS-068378) Page 2 � bluffiines." Under the Zoning Code, Sec. 60.202: in any particulaz case, the bluffline shall mean a line drawn along the top of the bluff such that the slope below the line is steeper than eighteen (18) percent and the slope above is eighteen (18) percent or less. The slopes greater than 18% aze not on insignificant distances — the house is squarely placed on 20% slopes. Variances would also be needed for any similaz driveway development on slopes or within the 40 ft. bluff setback for any work proposed on the 846 Winthrop lot., Executive Order 79-19 requires protection of bluffs within the entire River Corridor greater than 18%, and specific condirions for development of slopes between 12 and 18%. The Order also reguires for all plans and regulations that bluffs aze to remain in their natival state, m;n;m;�a�on of site alteration, and retention of existing veaetation and landscaping. These bluff protections serve many purposes including protection of the stability of the bluff, reduction of runoff rates, protection of scenic and natural values which led to the designation as a Critical Area, reduction of erosion and sedimentation, and protection and continuation of wildlife habitat, biological diversity, and already connected greenways. Variances may also be needed from Sec. 68.403 (b) and (c) which requue "no bluffline vegetation shall be removed or altered �cept that required for the placement of structures;' and "clear cntting shall be prohibited except as necessary for placing approved public roads, utilities, structures and pazking azeas." A variance may also be needed from Sec. 68.402 (c) (6) that requires "development shall fit e�sting topography and vegetarion with a minimum of clearing and gading. Under the City's Zoning Code, Sec. 68.401, "the objective of standazds and criteria is to maintain the aesthetic inte�'ity and natival environment of the river corridor in conformance to the St. Paul Mississippi River Corridor Plan by reducing the effects of _poorly planned shoreline and bluffline • development, ...preventing soil erosion; and implementing metropolitan plans, policies, and standards." For the Urban Open Space District, the "lands and waters within tlus district shall be managed to conserve and protect the existing and potential recreational, scenic, nahu�al, and lustoric resources and use within this district for the use and enjoyment of the surrounding region. Open space shall 'be provided in the open river valley lands for public use and the protection of unique natural and scenic resources." Proposed development on wooded slopes greater than 18% does not reduce the effects of poorly planned bluffline development nor protect the natural scenic and environmentai resources, but results in the detriment of the Mississippi River bluffs. Under state statutes for variances requued by the Critical Area laws, members acting as a Boazd of Zoning Appeals on variance decisions should solicit testunony on all of the following variance prerequisites from Minnesota Statutes. We ask the Boazd to consider the statutory prerequisites and posed questions (shown in italics) regarding the Critical Area River Corridor in their fmal decision. According to the courts, the applicant has a'heavy burden of proof to show that all of the prerequisites haue been met. In addition to the statewide statutory requirements, the Board also needs to follow more resirictive variance requirements in their ordinance. The Boazd of Appeals and Adjusbments has the following statutory powers with respect to variances and the zoning ordinance from MN Statutes, section 462357, subd. 6: 1) Variances shall only be granted when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Does the granting of these vm-iances protect the �ssissippi River Corridor and prevent cmd mitigate irreversible damage to this resozmce? Does the granting of these variances meet the purposes • for the Urbcaz Open Space District to conserve and protect the �isting and potential recreational, scenic, natural, and historic resources? Does the granting of a vm�iance reduce .. � �� Site Plan Review Pa 3 2� 3) 4) 5) 6) � 8) 816 Winthrop (OS-068-378) the effects of poorly pic�ned shoreline and bluffline development, prevent soil erosion, m�d implementplmu for the Critical,4rea? Strict enforcement would cause undue hazdship because of circumstances unique to the individual proper[y. YVhat unique circrm�strnices of the properiy compel the development on c�eas of wooded slopes greater thme 18%? If the constraint is common to a m�mber of properties in the area or along the river, such as blufflines or stopes greater than 18% which is the case here, then the circumstmtces are not unique to the subject property. Undue hazdship means the pmperly in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Undue hardsfiip means the plight of the landowner is due tc circumstances unique to the propetty not created by the landowner. Court cases have shown tha2 problems peculiar to the present owners, their individual desires, or economic desires do not satisfy the prerequisite because they don't relate to the property itself. L�har is unique about the actual Icmd of the individual properry for the sm�ctures anc! development? If the problem is common to a nzonber of properties in the area or along the river, such as blufjlines, and slopes greater than 18% then it is not unique to the subject property_ Undue hazdship means the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of fihe Iocality. Is the essential character of the Mississippi River Corridor and purposes of designation detrimentally altered if structures cmd development are aZlowed to occza� on the sZopes greater than IS'�o themselves, as well as into bluffline setbacks, cmd bluffline vegetation is removed? Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. No variance shall be granted that would permit any use that is prolubited in this ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solaz energy systems. We do not see where all of the prerequisites for variance approval and proof of hazdship under Minnesota staiutory 2aw can be met The circi�stances of tfiis individuai propeity or Iand itself aze not unique. Many properties neaz to the Mississippi River in the city have bluffs, bluffiines, and slopes greater than 1$% - key rationale for designation and protection in the fust place. Any such variance approvals for these structures, driveway, grading, and vegetation removal on slopes and witUin setbacks would not be in keeping with fihe spirit and intent of the Criticai Areas Act of i973, Criticai Area requirements or federal Mississippi National River and Recreation Area policies to preserve and protect bluffs greater than 18% and ensure bluffs remain in their natural state. u r� �� • �� 5-�� Site Plan Review - 816 Winthrop (OS-068-378) Page 4 The proposed landscape plan is also not in keepina with the Critical Area standards and MNRRA • polieies for retenUon of the e�sting vegetation and management of veaetative cutting. The replacement of 21 lazge, canopy "oak-basswood forest species" with 1 narive pin oak, and the ecologically- inappropriate 7 Black Hills Spruces is detrimental to the protection and preservation of the biolo and ecological functions of the Corridor. The planting of 7 invasive nonnative Amur maples as replacements or additional revegetation is egregious_ This species displaces native species in a wide range of habitats. We ask that your decision deny this site plan and subsequent variances, and support compliance with all the requirements for the Critical Area River Corridor and variance prerequisites. Thank you for properIy implementing the state statutes and Crirical Area plans and rea lations in protecting and preserving the Mississippi Critical Area Comdor. As requ'ued, please send us notificafion of the fmal decision on this proposal, as well as 30-day notification prior to final action as required for all development activities requiring a public hearing or discretionary action_ Sincerely, DNR Waters Ci��/�.�� C'� %� Sandy Fecht � Critical Area/MIVRRA Hydrolo�st � • ✓ � �5-5�� PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT OF 816 WINTHROP STREET SOUTH We, the residents of Highwood Hills, submii this petition in opposition to the proposed construction on 816 Winthrop Sireet South, Saint Paul, Minnesota for the reasons stated below: �n' 1. We believe the City of St. Paul approved the lot split �t 84d Winthrop Street South in a manner ihat is not legal; 2. We believe we were deprived of our righT to appeal the City's action; 3. We believe the proposed development of the property at 816 Winthrop Street South seriously violates #he Highwood Plan policies and �egulaTions; 4. We believe the proposed developmertt at 876 Winthrop Street South seriously violates the Mississippi River Corridor standards. For these reasons, all building and construction on this lot is unacceptabie and should be stopped immediate(y. Further devefopment of tfiis lot should not be pllowed and variances should not be granted. We, the undersigned residents of Highwood Hills, respecffully demand fhaf the Highwood Plan and Mississippi River Cortidor Standards be strictly applied and upheld. � � �`�,'�-4-.`� i� �y� �� Name Address Phone SignaNre 8 Date � n /� �/ ` ✓ � " t. ✓'�� ti c,��Ul=1"E;.� �� '�ziG : '� Z�%�r"i"�,�� ' C_ 1 yS7 ''_- 2. 4,�� ^�-� � s � <�.-�;-,� �,� 5� �� t_�.�5 � ��Y j�S a. F! �'t�s �-� .1�, ;?�. �� s�8-�ac3 ��1�-�` y/9�5' � sr, a. .: .�,�a �30 -sc,7 ; G�s: s � r,, ' � L� �i��..n c:.t � v-� 7ea f `� 6 �. � 1 i�.!f��,�.r� �`��i Lv -1fGii� Sf S� fi�Ll �f/ 73/ �//7 `�� 7$ ,� s �-�rt a:sf�✓ �� w-nfti�y� St Sf9<..�/ �s�-��- 3i P� /��.i^� 3 i�S �jQ 2 s+. �.-� �� S ti- �-I T/� �, �g� 6Sl 73 � � s a 1�- � , �. --�'�� , Yt�. A� W tLic.kNla✓ �3 M. �: ;tlM " ^ /`-�.. .� y � � • �"�� . t . l�/�''�.v � �a � Gt/ro�.� �' .�C' 7� i-�%7 �1 a��.�� I"i �nc� .i+� �. �51�3v-Cbb�1 � PETITfON OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT OF 816 WINTXROP $TREET $OUiH $1GriASORE PAGE � N�e Address Phone Signahire 8 Date _ :�. �e�,�� D<<;Q.�e,� t� c. S�_��..l� s�l�� 5� r-��sy �' �5 ✓C� v`�'�i. 'C�S ; C� �.� '� v�, i^ L i ✓I. c��l-cjn �� S�"��'_�,�� «. 1�y1� ._JC�a �7 � � �fr � � I�I jrL �� ' �Ge^�_�l �S l-�� S� �SI 73��3i � aa F . �7F_J'J.�.Aa � �O\ W c• �.�� l�--cU (:�� i-�1 s � - ?�Z — — Tj a�_:f -�-F/✓li�a/r� �i�' l�U�w . r�� 12� /r,S'l 73S�Z . a�F � ,��1 � �J � Lr1 r GG .ivg � 1� (v5"i �/�/ '7��1�� 25 �'-�iZ �� c�G�_ S 7� otlt� F,�.�-�`� ro 6�( 7� y- 93. d7 � ' � � l��l/r.��o�i C�. �5��7�3a'�� /�9 /�ll�n.�,�l /��1 � i�R !�� 1- �1'� 55�1 � /; ��r �7^"�zk.��-�'l.� C� `�_ %��1� �� - � 3 } ---] ( , v (�.s1-73j r �F�g ��- 7�1� rz �� (�5 i �f�� o� (��( �� S ��f—`53�C� . 5 5 ��-��-s -O�"�5�� PETITION OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT OF 816 WINTNROP STREET SOUTX SIGNATURE PAGE # � Name Address Phone Signature & Date u� C �cf< r ��e / �/S cf;�Yi3e'iP/ .�C_' '� 3d'dl C`��1.t.�k,( 'f `f� �G.y�r� r�6f �1! � l Rd �`y G3 yj (h � �- �1��"Y; � i cc� I��'.r'Z�vi�� fE�3..2J L=L '� `� l�''2LL� - �f � � �✓y,�yC�, `�'� �Ftrfc� �i= �N �c�J.'�G� ,�l-� 7 �'� ��j�✓ '�1-C''+S L v: 05-5Q�, SIGNATURE PAGE # Name Address Phone Signaivre 8. Dat 7u � .�.r� O..£i!7 U Jf 1 L� l 7�?S'3'�'1..� �� `/ "� 'II J G.;� n ' ,•'� �! �Z Gv/' 61� �� ll�Z. � �;,,.k Y�� S��L — —� � � IS: e� 7z " ��s S, i,�,-�:��,��, � �� i-1��-3�sr< �,�� .�` � � — —� T , �3 ��,�� -S � : C,_. �� ,�` y . �� '�11 - 73� � a' �.� \ a�� .. c -y�\ �'� � '/ �� S; So ��r>L�� s � G�% '73G-; � - � �s �w�� ?�� ., Lt ;�,n Sf �.�1 73/ - 9�Z7 - � ,�L� i�' 7G /. //Cf7Lre� �//��JS �S�' -s. Z?/,r�f�Y� �� (3 _�Z7 s� 4'/r'�S �� . V� SS /l �. C�.f,'��yl�r�c�n s' r�i 73c-��Y �l<(� �-S�-cs �v \ .�U��_ %�ln.�.h-1�,� �,� t�iGi .��°w�. �c�`�v� S�' �dSl - ��i• Zz�(�-b.k� �Y , fi � FF�t J� x� _, � r � J s� (: n. • —. M„� C c- G2 J S'-'� �; .� I ��" J� �C �I -�� — 7 13 lv . c� N��C--c�:c.� �s! �.� �� :Y^L,�-,�_ _ �� f �� /�� 9�� / �9 `7�� ' �C� �� -tc � .�� p �-�--� O�'� 54� ��`��f%D.� �%7c�( ��c �//ccwvo0 �T s'��v�.v��.�; �.sa��y�a�3 � ss. ;� ,� �� t�C�.At�scS�S si �v�.,�tnt s 3to-e�� =(-�c v �� ?�os�� s��SY�'��.G�/�� - , � ) .� °i o .� E ' i� � � /�'1 . A � '-f � �/'/�Cy� �ea 4 ; 1�. �)� S. Y��n� L�� I /4�i �..Y�-� C�SI-`135 ?`7i3 5x�. �6/. Sr�ra�n f" :�< �-. 5� �wc- �s ) 3 7r/ y3 �� " Y�! �/`t �l �� l � .�i+ � '� ��-u.�.e�` �U' ��o ST r��, P•�AJ 55i:9 �S �" � S t e ' �� tiKS`� Z:•>\Hc::..;au� SF.S..S\�a..�%.thltiSSi(a �S�- 73� 3i�(� �k �. - ZoSt S� �� Si S . Si . �hu��t l L-Si 7 � � � l°� � �. �- �. �s. �. � �. �. �. �• �• �• �. i�i �. �. �r. � �- � � Q---�� , � � � • • s� � s:�e, Ne��ars la-ek m , ri��, Nes�l,� c�.r'rve�.,,ar oti �e�6 �..J1 �' �C LLSod 'Go CIC.CaS"f �� Y GN c` Cf Y0 i� S'C�'?q0 S4� Ih �*A'� L� �C��d, 1 �i r � �_J Ne55�`ors �'1o+�tz�., ahc� c �r:•rec,,e7 ��c� 4rr1/�Yav�� cceaesl. a � � << �k� �. �.L' J ��e � S� : bVR !s .� �' f ; �+2'�t-�( [ � y� � i " B � .;. ¢ � �`�F a �.-er r�t�� t � � .3 -< '-;- �u a }r, <�-x�gp� �� { ! '"�� Xy�Y � i z,v�'� . `T: s 3 � }� '.�:"� e h .�l q .�*C� y .»�. , � � � +„ �j � li*��1 �F . . S t `� : fb '�i' 3�„ � .�V�+" � _ :.�X� r '. ' , � . . : 1 .- . . { . .. .. .�.,�� _;. �t'^ , L.t s t � - � ._ � . t Kk ; ' _ —. -� .,--^: ,-$� ' ' _ ' _ e�..� � . _ ...�,. . .. . + 3 5ti � - � € ' g1 � `� � : 2- � �F� �;k�fa � ` "s sgT�k ��ge t - - � '�I .�, ' '.'" _ .. r" � ` ' I � _ .. „'.'�;..z+..' �. - '.. v � „ } { � r $# ¢ � ��x9 � �� ' 4 � y : �., °� a 3 ��-` /� «�"^�a��_ *.. :3 ". ��. = k`�eY � t°J �°✓" S �a .� t $? ? , r . z``�w �• <�� ' 3G V $ � : t k . . ��. ' g . � �.. � � ;; _{ � ;�� . ; ,��" x � � s. ` g ... � ' � .Yl:��('/�BeM. � ,�'sir i, 2 r�� ... . �:..� .. `�l a I � L � . �:.,. t��f rR �.J ". .n ..��' r � ,E�� _ -,: � - `: � �..�, � '�� Po ,. �' _ � �, �� ` �� z; �- � _ � f �. � . � 3; � r �h� '` �° �,� ,�� _ �� . -�=� ''- � ��'� � �� ,s � �"= �� . .-`> � ■ ■ a � � w u; NWwtn 0� Nr3pOWCO .00 U 6NN2 �N Z <I�F 'vWi yCjO i� __�"� `n o�y=: �F r ui� N U' Um' ��N <ZZ2 ? �OD�ZpC}} - O� 1-�OV:Nu'�l' � * x � Q � � 0 0 � � � � � _ 0 � � � � m � U � g � .Lr , .W.�aa Q w O � =W � F � L'�� wQ Q"Qr`� ? �rs� m = m� ¢� ¢� U� ��. >z r z pp �o ao 00 � � J � Q �G Q � N F � * Z * � ca �„m Z� (n 5< ��»�y� � o-° ivaao+n�n��nn 00 000 O O � O � <O WI�1I1111 �- OO�N�NO� Q Q� �NNNNi " NN O C �� o O o 0 0 C � w 4 O a (Y 1 „ .z � N o � Q � F z w "-�.' � N ¢ v Q ulS a p o e � � � �� ' � � T E-" � U�` � �n � Y �� z. Q C / .'"'7' z Hp� �� 0 I � � ��t �� 0 � � �a 0 � I 6 � � �� N 6 3 ¢ 0 0 � N K 4 �5 �� a 3 ¢ 0 0 c . Z 0 ' �> � U y � �� W HF �F wo ao z } �} J 2m C N W y 3 jz �z p0 �O Q� �O W O W li� a1 c° v `�-" v�i �z *,z � z z aaaaaaada ga g��»-'a3r'n� ao � �LI n awe c�em�nnn Q a O 0 O O O 00 O O O O �ry N � �' W NNNN��NNry � � � � ��O O O O O � 0 r, � � N I' �� Q lo 0 'i��.� m � , � N > ' �� w m r o ';e,£ Q iz w � �i3i: Z .y,i o a f ti `» a c�i w Q '.�ii i='s.il � n = � 1 1 i . j s i ! : � o m in w in ow ow �F �F � wo ao � Y J m Wm 0 = . a �i,a �n ^ �N 3N � jz y z ; p QO o ¢ W ��w � �J � Q �Q m � N i- ( Y � Z � Z 1 J N NWWN pW ��r�oowaa �oo �� `n m xz �ryQy23� ZZ WW�j m Jm�ZOFWO 3zx"��o�<¢ ZfEt�"i �¢c�Umti- zzzn v10�2rONNmO � � �� W � F �� /} d� �s� � V � ~, • Q a � R' � m 0 � ��V \ $ Z O > l�J W J � � • � t= . a ,.c, � .. '�. �,emrar�s i t;vu-�-"�,'n—a «z � " . � _. s'""c� �.,�.�5�:�'C „ � ..`"�.�.. t1 �o -..-.... �� ''�w�'� �x i�"a a 'P` � 'ri�c }�" + . ��-..K: � � o ,e,��: f �'g.. , �. �„�s� � �s ��l��',�-, � -� -,�� ,�,z, �_ �.a�� , �°��.w r�'° z.ua.�,.-�"r-�& . �� . ... � .;,� p 4-u��> s��..w . �� L^ • � - ��, � a� �-59� �� DistrictlCommunity Council DistrictllVews 1'he newspaper of the DistriM 1 Communitp Conncil 2090 Conway Sheet, Room 126 Saint Paul, MN SSll9 voice: (651) 501-6345 fas: (651) 501-6346 Battle Creek Police Storefront "A Commnaity Partnerslup" 2107 Old Hudson Road, SunRay Shopping Center Saint Paul, MN SSll9 voice: (651) 702-6770 fax: (651) 7148229 Tom Beach June 6, 2005 RECEIVED City of Saint Paul- LIEP 8 Fourth Street East, s��te zoo ��N 0 7 2005 St. Paul, MN 55101-1024 RE: District 1 decision on 816 Winthrop Street COUNC��,�EM KATHY L,qNTRY Tom, TMC Cistr� i CC^?SSi4'^!�/ COL'!:C!I �?�cS organized p!�blic hearings and reviewed information oertainino to the lot split and subsequent site plan for 816 Winthrop throughout 2004-2005. In April 2004, a public hearing was held to discuss the lot split with neighbors. At that time, the District 1 Council recommended approval of the lot split only if it could 6e divided without variances to tAe Highwood Plan. We also asked for a two week delay of any decision so neighbors could work to buy the property. We subsequentiy found out the lot split had been denied. In the fail of 2004, we were notified that the lot split had been approved and that the appeal time had expired. In February of 2005, the District i Cornmunity Council met with neighbors, the developer, Tom Beach and the new owners of 816 Winthrop to go over the site plan. The meeting was contentious and the board was concerned about the steepness of the driveway and the layout of the house. In April of 2005, the District 1 Community Council attended the public hearing and recommended denial of the site plan because of variances to the Highwood Plan. District 1 specifically discussed the slope of the driveway and concerns that front footage of the property was at a slope greater than 18%. Neighbors and other residents of Highwood aiso spoke against the site plan at the hearing. At our May 2005 monthly board meeting, the District i Community Council reviewed and dis- cussed the final site plan. The board made the decision to recommend denial of the site plan. The site plan strongly varies from the Highwood plan dae to construction on slopes greater �har 1.��io. �$ ic"'c'SS�3i�S it�i 4`2Tii5f uY8 ii7G' 6$a.TEP3ii285 G� ii3$ tiPiVEYiiO`iT aiofj `a = �aC� construction. Other factors of the decision are: the objections of neighbors, the petition signed by most neighbors, the legality of the initial lot split and a letter from the DNR recom- mending denial of the site plan. In addition, the District i Community Council would request that city zoning staff pay closer attention to code and the Highwood Plan in order to reduce undue harm to potential buyers of land that are unaware that the property is unbuildable. Feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding District 1's decision. Thanks, Ann Mueller- Community Organizer, District 1 Community Council �� , -� ;.t� :;�--� �-.°� Ci� Co`a rrctl - Presid��CaYfi� lantry� District 1 President Phillip Fueh�er District 1 Community Council • 2090 Conway St • Room 126 • St Paul, MN 55119 voice: (651) 501•6345 fax: (651) 501-63Ab e-mail: DistrictlCouncil@aoZ.com